Very Good "real news" video! Keep this video, Gregory and this topic present and moving. (I hate to say 'viral', but it should be burning up the airwaves [or electro-magnetic frequencies].
"Shock of shocks!" Love the history on this story, Gabe. I'm wondering if you feel that this amendment vote is the best way the House could be spending its time right now? If so, why; if not, why?
I think it’s always a good use of time to be looking at ways to improve the political system - as I say in the video, I think that’s long overdue. That said, I don’t think the backers of this amendment have done any of the necessary work in to get it above the 2/3 threshold. In that light, the vote is basically guaranteed not to translate into anything. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a waste of time, of course - can still be valuable to get people on the record on an important issue, and maybe holding this vote at all will at least remind Congress that they can try voting an amendments from time to time! But it would have been more worthwhile had it been married with a real push for support. As for the substance of the amendment, I don’t think there is necessarily anything magical about nine as the number of justices. But I do think the prospect of one party packing the court is a dangerous road to go down, since the other party will inevitably do the same once they’re in power, going back and forth until the Supreme Court ceases to mean anything. I’d probably prefer an amendment that says the court will have nine justices unless 3/5 or 2/3 or some supermajority threshold of Congress chooses to change it, over an amendment that keeps nine without any way for bipartisan change. But I’d probably prefer an amendment that keeps nine over the threat of partisan court packing.
Excellent story, Gabe! This is a gem of obscure governmental history which reminds us, while not an easy thing to do, change can happen if the dedication and motivation hold strong. THANK YOU!
How about age and term limits for the justices first? That’s what America needs now so we don’t have the old, incompetent fools sitting on the bench earning lots of money and getting more for favors while doing nothing.
Know the story well, and it always brings a smile to my face. Now if someone(s) would try passing the original first amendment, maybe we could get some things settled.
I highly recommend the book We The People by Jill Lepore. It is a history of the constitution and is a fascinating look at history I never knew. It is an easy read and not a text book. She offers that amendments allow for change without a revolution. The Civil War was a result of an inability to amend the constitution.
Gabe, when you do a YouTube post like this, could you possibly also post a transcript of the interview for those of us who prefer to read rather than watch a video or listen to a podcast?
Great story of persistence! I’m happy that my home state, Colorado, was one of the first to ratify.
Very Good "real news" video! Keep this video, Gregory and this topic present and moving. (I hate to say 'viral', but it should be burning up the airwaves [or electro-magnetic frequencies].
"Shock of shocks!" Love the history on this story, Gabe. I'm wondering if you feel that this amendment vote is the best way the House could be spending its time right now? If so, why; if not, why?
I think it’s always a good use of time to be looking at ways to improve the political system - as I say in the video, I think that’s long overdue. That said, I don’t think the backers of this amendment have done any of the necessary work in to get it above the 2/3 threshold. In that light, the vote is basically guaranteed not to translate into anything. Doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a waste of time, of course - can still be valuable to get people on the record on an important issue, and maybe holding this vote at all will at least remind Congress that they can try voting an amendments from time to time! But it would have been more worthwhile had it been married with a real push for support. As for the substance of the amendment, I don’t think there is necessarily anything magical about nine as the number of justices. But I do think the prospect of one party packing the court is a dangerous road to go down, since the other party will inevitably do the same once they’re in power, going back and forth until the Supreme Court ceases to mean anything. I’d probably prefer an amendment that says the court will have nine justices unless 3/5 or 2/3 or some supermajority threshold of Congress chooses to change it, over an amendment that keeps nine without any way for bipartisan change. But I’d probably prefer an amendment that keeps nine over the threat of partisan court packing.
Excellent story, Gabe! This is a gem of obscure governmental history which reminds us, while not an easy thing to do, change can happen if the dedication and motivation hold strong. THANK YOU!
Fascinating !! Thank you for sharing that.
How about age and term limits for the justices first? That’s what America needs now so we don’t have the old, incompetent fools sitting on the bench earning lots of money and getting more for favors while doing nothing.
Increase the size of Congress; I’ve written about it on SubStack.
Know the story well, and it always brings a smile to my face. Now if someone(s) would try passing the original first amendment, maybe we could get some things settled.
I highly recommend the book We The People by Jill Lepore. It is a history of the constitution and is a fascinating look at history I never knew. It is an easy read and not a text book. She offers that amendments allow for change without a revolution. The Civil War was a result of an inability to amend the constitution.
Gabe, when you do a YouTube post like this, could you possibly also post a transcript of the interview for those of us who prefer to read rather than watch a video or listen to a podcast?
Great job Gabe. It matched history, procedure and education - well done! ~UR