icyrus said:
As for changing the consitution, I'm no expert on US politics but I'm pretty sure that making that sort of change to it is something far beyond the power of the presidency and I seriously doubt the whole of congress would back that.
Seems it only requires a two thirds majority.. Also the last time I cared to look I believe that congress was majority Republican, though of course that may have changed..
'Amending the Constitution
The first Congress to conduct business under the authority of the new Constitution met in New York City on March 4, 1789. The issue of a bill of rights was proposed at once, and the new government began following constitutional procedures to change, or amend, the document. According to the Constitution itself, amendments must be approved by at least two thirds of the members of each house of Congress and by three quarters of the states. (There is also an alternate amendment process that has never been used.)
Taken from
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2030370-h&templatename=/article/article.html
busy looking to see what this 'alternate amendment process' is
*edit*
Found it..
"Popular Amendment
One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them."
It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether."
So it would seem that if, say the Americans put it to a national vote, then they could change the constitution, but as pointed out above, it's most unlikely to happen seeing as it hasn't happened in 230 years of independence...
