Because freedom can't protect itself
He reminds us that nationally, a two-thirds — or a "super" — majority is required to amend the Constitution
You might want to go back and review Article V.
This is genius. Judges should make all of their decisions based on how much "backlash" there will be from the public.
A majority vote isn't enough to override a judicial decision? This "judicial decision" is a simple majority of 7 people.
Indeed, you need a majority of legislators in two thirds of the states. You will get that, for an amendment whose support is widely distributed, at a point where not much more than a majority of the public approves of the amendment, assuming legislators can be considered statistical samplings of the public. (After all, the sample size is large.) You might talk to a statistician, he could explain the math better than I
The bottom line is, that two thirds requirement doesn't demand that a huge majority of VOTERS favor an amendment, it requires that support for the amendment be widely distributed. Which was the point, to prevent the Constitution from being amendment because of causes which only had *regional* support.
Don't be ashamed, it's a common mistake. But, also, don't persist in the mistake: Amendments require *widespread* support, not *supermajority* support, from voters.
More information about formatting options
Get breaking news on issues you care about
Congress: Restore the Voting Rights Act
Sign up for the ACLU Action newsletter.
Chip in to help protect all of our rights and liberties.
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York NY 10004
This is the website of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about these two components of the ACLU.