Approval Of Amendment To Agreement With Provider: Fill & Download for Free

Yes, but the time isn’t right.America is too divided, too polarized right now to accomplish what would need to be accomplished in order to make real change to the Constitution.The two ways to go about working on an update are the congressional method or the constitutional convention method. Both would theoretically result in one or more amendments to update the Constitution.The way all 27 amendments to the constitution so far have been made is through the Congressional process.Congress proposes an amendment, which must be approved with a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress. So you need 66 Senators, AND 288 members of the House of Representatives to agree on a proposed amendment.Once that’s done, the national archivist sends it to the governor of each state who then sends it to their state legislatures. 3/4 of the state legislatures must vote to ratify the proposed amendment, in other words, 38 states have to ratify.Now. Can you imagine that much agreement in Congress OR the states when it comes to something as game-changing as a constitutional amendment?The other way to go about it is to call a Constitutional Convention. In order for that to happen, first, 34 states must petition Congress to call a Convention.Any Amendment proposed at such a convention must be ratified by 3/4 of the states, again 38 states have to agree.Here’s how the whole thing reads:The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.Right now, 30 State Legislatures are controlled by Republicans, 18 by Democrats and 2 are split.So. Think about what you’re trying to accomplish with a Convention or with amendments proposed by Congress.Never mind how split down the middle Congress is:Think you can get 20 Republican Controlled states to jettison the Electoral College or reword the 2nd amendment?Think you can get Eight Democratic States to agree to a balanced budget amendment or to clarify the 14th so that it can’t be interpreted to include a right to a private conversation between a woman and her doctor? Or to add jus sanguinis as a requirement for citizenship?Yes, The Constitution needs to be looked at and updated. The Founding fathers knew that would be the case, it’s why Article V is in it.But in order to accomplish that, first, we have to work on our divisions.

I tend to find the reality is more the opposite. When engaging with Remain voters (caveat, some though not all) I am consistently surprised by how little they seem to know about the EU. Actually the truly surprising thing is not that people are ignorant. You expect people to be ignorant. What you don’t expect is people to be ignorant, yet speak and act as if they think they are knowledgeable. And then patronise people who have considerably greater knowledge than they do.I have worked in and with EU institutions for the past 20 years. Liaising with the EU Commission in Brussels, is part of my job. In my field of expertise — the EU’s Digital Single Market — there are undoubtedly some people who know more about the field than I do. But two hands would be enough to count them.And yet, the number of comments from self-appointed experts who write in a patronising tone “actually, that’s not how it works”; “actually, you should read up a bit on how EU laws work”; “actually, the UK can veto/refuse any law it doesn’t like” (no it can’t); “actually, the European Commission is equivalent to the British civil service” (no it’s not); “actually, the democratically elected EU parliament is fully in control of the Commission’s agenda” (no it isn’t); “actually, the EU is just a set of agreements between equal consenting parties, it doesn’t work like a government”…I blocked someone recently after a foul-mouthed rant in comments, accusing an answer of mine of “lying” for stating that the EU uses Directives (in addition to Treaties) for expanding the scope of its powers. It’s absolutely true. Look at the EU’s Electronic Communications Code, which comes into force this year. Over vast swathes of policy, it takes powers away from national regulators, and gives them to its own centralised authority, in Brussels. In several other areas, it makes decisions of national governments subject to “approval” and potential veto, by Brussels.The EU has already used this legislation to veto a decision made by the Swedish government. See here: Commission blocks Swedish regulation of fibre networks, requesting detailed analysis of geographic markets - Shaping Europe’s digital future - European Commission. The subject covered by the EU’s veto, only affected business internally, within Sweden. This veto shocked a lot of people. It has been taken by many, as a clear sign that the balance of power between the EU and national institutions, has entered a new phase.The power transfer between the member state and Brussels happens in large, publicly visible “lumps” like the Maastricht Treaty and the EU Constitution (aka Lisbon Treaty). But it also happens on a continuous basis, via Directives. In 2019, there were 19 new Directives passed by the EU, and 14 amendments to existing Directives. That’s 33 new pieces of fundamental legislation, enacted by the EU. Amendments to Directives can also be used to centralize powers. In 2004, the EU set up its own cybersecurity agency ENISA.[1] In 2009, the EU then passed an amendment to an existing directive giving ENISA a formal role in national cybersecurity policy.Now, it may well be that you positively want to be in an organisation that works like that. If so, one should 100% respect your preference. In my case, I’m reasonably well informed on how the EU works, and have decided that I do not. Oh I’ll engage with it professionally. Of course I will, it’s part of my job. But I don’t want to be subject to it, politically. I certainly don’t get the impression that ignorance of the EU is higher among Leave voters than Remain voters. If anything, my anecdotal experience suggests the opposite.If I (had) had the chance to (as the question puts it) “provide this education” to a potential Brexit voter before the referendum, I’d have explained the following:what the EU is and how it works. Explain that it’s quite an unusual institution in global terms as it’s a higher layer of government, sitting above the nation. Most regional coordination ventures don’t work like thatthe potential costs and benefits of being in an organisation like that (regulation, one-size-fits-all policies, distance between policy-making and the people affected, democratic accountability)some of the EU’s achievements, eg the single market. Are they all they’re cracked up to be?the alternatives to EU membership, eg WTO trade rules, Free Trade Agreements, how these work in practice, pros & cons vs the EU single market, and so onPart of it is down to preference. Is that the sort of organisation you want to be in, or not? My wife and I had many conversations along the lines of the above. She chose to vote Remain. I chose to vote Leave. Neither of us “lacks education about the EU and Britain’s own history” (although because of my job, I know more about the EU than she does). Neither of us denigrates the other’s point of view. Nor would we dream of suggesting to each other “you’re just not well educated enough dear”.Footnotes[1] About ENISA

28th Amendment House and Senate Reform Amendment[I think this one could actually pass since its got somethings conservatives really want and some things democrats really want…rolling it all together is probably politically palatable]The House of Representatives shall be composed of 500 members [Currently there are only 435] apportioned among the several states and district of Columbia according to their population. One representative shall be set aside to represent the interests of all US territories who pay federal taxes (Guam where Republicans do well, Northern Marinas etc.).Members of the House shall be elected to one 2 year term and may stand for re-election twice after their initial term of election. After serving 6 no member of the House shall be re-elected except after a 4 year waiting period. [Term limits for the House].The Speaker of the House shall be elected by the popular vote of all the citizens of the United States. Such elections shall be held two years after the Presidential Election. The Speaker of the House shall:Have a line item veto on all spending and tax bills generated in the House. Such line item veto’s may be overridden by 2/3rds of the member of the House. [This gives some control of spending and takes a step to blunt the presidential imperial trend].Shall have concurrent authority for the deployment of the nations nuclear weapons , or subsequent similar devices which can produce mass casualties, with the President. The Speaker may countermand an order to deploy nuclear weapons if he believes the President has recently become of not sound mind and body or that the order is not consistent with the will of the people. The President may still deploy without concurrence in response to a proportional attack by a foreign power where circumstances do not allow for timely concurrence. [This imposes a second fail safe on the nations nuclear arsenal without compromising the presidents ability to react to an adversarial first strike attempt].Shall serve for a term of 4 years and maybe re-elected once. The person elected speaker may not seek the Office of the Presidency except after 4 years after their term as speaker expires. The Speaker maybe impeached under similar terms to the President and Vice President for high crimes and misdemeanors as contained in Article I Section 3 and Article II Section 4. If Impeachment articles for the Speaker are presented to the House , the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall Preside over the house during these proceedings. [Keeps a sitting speaker from directly running against a President he’s serving with so it removes some incentive for him to play political games with his veto power, Impeachment of the Speaker for High Crimes and Misdemeanors].In coordination with the President Pro-Temproe of the Senate , Shall set a working calendar for the House and Senate of not less than 240 days [Currently the House and Senate only work 138 days a year].Assign bills which shall be brought forth from committees in order of importance, however upon a motion in the House any bill maybe brought forth which has a support of 55% of the chamber to do so. [Set the order but not political games]No sitting member of the House or Senate may directly with their own hand or voice solicit for campaign funds from any citizen while the House or Senate is in session. This does not preclude prerecorded advertisements for reelection. [Currently most House members and Senators spend 50% of their time fundraising in DC , this doesn’t completely bar them from ever fund raising but it restricts their fundraising to times when they are not in session].Those elected to the US Senate may serve for up to 3 consecutive elected terms but are thereafter barred from serving in the US Senate. Anyone in office at the time of this amendment shall not serve more than 18 consecutive years.[18 Years should be enough]Congressional districts shall be drawn without regard or intent to favor one political party or another in any US State. States shall have 3 years after the ratification of this amendment to comply with appropriately drawn districts. [Death to the gerrymander].A non-partisan congressional ethics committee of 20 members shall have original review on all elected legislative members ethical conduct . The original members of the committee shall be selected by the Supreme Court from leading ethicists and shall draw lots with 2 members serving each 1 - 10 year terms. There after each session of congress shall designate two non-members of congress to serve 1 ten year term. The committee shall propose ethical conduct rules which set minimum standards of conduct and which 16 of the 20 members agree upon. The committee shall be the original and final jury of fact for all alleged ethical violations for which the penalty is a fine of not more than $5,000. The committee shall publish all findings to the journal of legislative affairs. All fines and grave ethical violations for which the committee by a majority finds due cause for shall be referred to the either the House or Senate for potential removal of the member. [No self policing ethics in the House or Senate]The locally produced tax revenue of the District of Columbia and US Territories shall be given equal consideration in Congress as they would a state. No curtailment or appropriation of these funds shall be made by Congress except in equal consideration of the rules governing curtailment given to a state. [No using DC or territories for political gaming]Members of Congress may submit a request for reimbursement of Housing expenses necessary to maintaining a dwelling in the district of Columbia. reimbursement is limited to the basic allowance for housing rates as determined by DoD for pay grade 0–6 in the House and 0–7 in the Senate. Congressional interns shall be afforded dwellings in the district at a rate equivalent to E-4, each member may employ interns that suit their political perspective but must take due diligence to consider candidates applying for internships regardless of the economic background of the applicant. [Right now congressional internships are predominately going to the children of the wealthy since living in the district is crazy expensive. This undoes some of that and also keeps congress from only being a rich boy club].Except in cases of a congressional declared war, US recession consisting of two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, or a national emergency as declared by 6 out of 10 members of the House; the House and Senate of the United States shall pass a balanced budget by the 31st of September in each year. [Balanced Budget is required except in cases of War, National Emergency , or Recession]. If no budget is passed by the morning of 1 October in any year:The House and Senate shall suffer an elected decimation. House and Senate members shall randomly draw lots with 10% of each chamber being removed from office and a special election, held within 90 days, called for their district or state. [Basically 1 in 10 out]. Every 30 days thereafter that a conforming budget is not passed by the House and Senate another decimation shall occur. Members who are randomly chosen in decimation are not eligible in the special election.If the House and Senate will have passed a balance budget and the President shall veto such measure, no decimation is required, but neither House may adjourn until a final version shall be passed into law. However if after a Presidential veto the House and Senate shall not override the veto or pass a new budget agreement the House and Senate shall have 30 days to pass a new agreement. [The Presidential veto does not game the system and force decimation].The congress shall have 7 years after ratification to achieve a balanced budget [We currently have a trillion dollar deficit projected it’ll take some time to correct it], but maynot increase the current deficit during the interim period.The Senate of the United States has a constitutional duty to consider all nominations of the President. The Senate may and should require an investigation of all Presidential nominees. During the 1st Year of a Presidential term the Senate must consider all nominees and schedule for hearing within 6 months of the President assuming office. Years thereafter the Senate shall take up consideration within 90 days of nomination. The Senate may extend either term for up to 90 days to provide for additional evidence from nominated officials. [You get an up or down vote between 90–270 days from nomination no endless gamesmanship].The tradition of the Senate Filibuster which protects the most impassioned objections of the minority shall be maintained. Except for cases involving a declaration of war or a budgetary matter resolved through the house , 3/5th of votes shall be enough to bring any bill or nomination to the floor for a vote. If members shall fall short of this amount, any filibuster attempt must involve actual speech by members of the opposition and they must take to the floor to let their objections to the bill or action be known. The Senators whose opposition to the measure is so great must literally talk the bill or approval to the end of time scheduled for its debate if they wish to use the filibuster to defeat the motion [You actually have to stand up and talk the bill to death].The people of Puerto Rico shall have a 10 year period to join the United States either for statehood or to declare themselves an independent nation. An election shall be held on the Island 10 years from the ratification of this amendment to finally resolve the matter.