The amendment process does not require participation from the president. Therefore, when discussing passage of an amendment to the constitution, it merely needs to go through House and Senate. The difficult part is gaining ratification from 37 of the 50 states.
The "American English Unification Amendment" as outlined in "E" is for English would appear to have sufficient support for consideration.
87% of America favors English as the official language. 71% of the nation favors voter I.D. cards that would include the actual picture of the person who's name appeared on the card. These are two of the highlights of the "American English Unification Amendment" AKA the "E" Amendment. But there is more.
Louisiana Senator, David Vitter proposed changing Congressional representation to "citizen based" from "person based." The constitution defines "persons" and not "citizens." Vitter objects on the grounds that "citizens only" should be the benchmark for determining representation. His argument is not without merit.
Shouldn't representation be based on actual citizens? Most Americans are not aware that "persons" are the basis of determining how many Congressmen states are allotted. It has always been population based. True, these non-citizen persons are not allowed to vote. But they are included when tabulating the number of Congressional seats each state may hold.
Specifically, if Vitter's proposal were adopted, California would lose five seats, New York would lose two and Illinois would lose one seat. Gaining states would be Oregon, Nebraska, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Texas and either Montana, Tennessee or Florida. Senate Democrats who opposed Vitter's idea pointed out correctly that all eight seats that would be transferred are currently occupied by Democrats.
Vitter's plan is included intact in the "E" Amendment.
There is no way to know exactly where those new districts would fall. But when looking at the gaining states, chances are, they would ultimately end up in Republican hands. Was this Vitter's ultimate goal?
Probably not! The question becomes, "should we allow only citizens to influence our legislative decisions? You would think so! If it were otherwise, wouldn't we allow non-citizens to vote? Republicans are quick to accuse Democrats of fast track amnesty, just in time for elections. Perhaps they have a point!
The "E" Amendment jumps into the thick of Vitter's argument. Not only does it propose picture I.D. cards as necessities for voting, but it also clearly affirms the Senator's position. House seat allocation will be based on citizens, not persons.
Vitter's idea would become in full focus when the proposed amendment went back to the states. It is expected that California and New York would oppose the amendment. But they are only two states. North Dakota and Alaska would have equal say. Both would be certain to ratify the "E" Amendment.
There are other provisions included in this proposed legislation. With Republicans winning more governorships, the chances of ratification grow with each passing day. A House and Senate majority could be a reality after the election.
It is clearly time to begin discussing the 'E" Amendment.
Post a Comment