How others see America and the Virginia shootings.

It seems I've seen several stories of boats being turned away for a year or two. Unbridled unchecked immigration is problem in any country and can affect the dynamics of what goes out on in public out on the economy. I don't want to say gentrified but it seems at times that Aussies want a bit of very contrived if not controlled society. They're not the only ones either.

true. Our current government led by Liberal (what a misnomer) Tony Abbott is very conservative and Abbott has often said he wishes Australia could go back to the 1950s. Believe me, he is doing his best to drag us back there. The only reason Abbott is in power is because the previous government (Australian Labor Party) was consumed by infighting and leadership battles and the country had had a gutful of them.
 

As a Canadian, America is my next door neighbour. Although I may disagree with the gun culture I see as so prevalent a part of their society, I refuse to buy into the view that makes me anti American. I have strong principals around some issues. I have frequently criticised aspects of my own gov't/culture which I believe are inappropriate and need to be addressed. This does not mean I am anti Canadian either. It means I care enough to want to work for change. Isn't that the true meaning of patriotism?

Not much chance of changing the US as our Constitution does require good efforts from both House and Senate and for some problems, also a round of state referendums on the subject as the Congress has decided it to change to. Over all the final votes must be large, likely in the 60% area. Can look it up if really needed, but hoping the comment is sufficient for now. And especially for the guns this is true. Other means have been proposed and it works partially but not completely till the Second Amendment gets changed.
 
If you were able to watch the video, you would see that Adam Hills did address the fact that amendments to the constitution are possible and historically have happened. Even amendments to cancel previous amendments.

One of the valid points he did make is that the media called an attempted massacre on a train in Europe "a wake up call to America." He then asks why two journalists being murdered on camera is not a wake up call. A guest on the show (not shown in the clip) who is a Canadian observed that if Sandy Hook wasn't a wake up call then nothing else will be. Ever.

Am I to take away the message that it doesn't matter how many people are murdered using firearms, let alone accidentally killed or injured, in the United States there will never be any tightening of the laws relating to firearms ownership?

This is the realpolitik?
 

If you were able to watch the video, you would see that Adam Hills did address the fact that amendments to the constitution are possible and historically have happened. Even amendments to cancel previous amendments.

One of the valid points he did make is that the media called an attempted massacre on a train in Europe "a wake up call to America." He then asks why two journalists being murdered on camera is not a wake up call. A guest on the show (not shown in the clip) who is a Canadian observed that if Sandy Hook wasn't a wake up call then nothing else will be. Ever.

Am I to take away the message that it doesn't matter how many people are murdered using firearms, let alone accidentally killed or injured, in the United States there will never be any tightening of the laws relating to firearms ownership?

This is the realpolitik?


Yes, it is possible to make amendments to our Constitution and we have done so over the 200 years of our existence. But it is not easy nor fast to do. We have 27 right now already done. I don't know how many others may be in the mill and no way of telling if others are ready for the state by state effort to make them real. It is not easy or fast for good reasons. We want stability in our Constitution which means basically leave it alone and only change for real reasons, not just for some folks idea of 'better' for personal reasons. Once done in our Congress it then requires a high margin from the states to make it happen. I believe the numbers of acceptance for any proposed changes is 2/3 of each house in Congress and then also 2/3 of the states. Lots of legal stuff to make this difficult to do. Which does give us a long term, stable, Constitution to follow and live with. This is good as today's big issue may in twenty years or more will become somehow a joke or unnecessary for many reasons. We go slow, all you non US folks telling the US how to operate. We know how to operate very well and have done so for well over 200 years now. Something hard for some folks to manage, if any.
 
I've looked the process for amending the Constitution and it seems that there are two possible pathways.

From the National Archives

The Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval.

The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment.

When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

This article is vague about how the states ratify the proposed amendments but it comes into effect when 38 out of 50 states ratify it. It's a high bar and not easy to achieve, but if the people are behind it, it should be possible. Clearly, three amendments were made in our lifetimes - 24th, 25th and 26th.

Our process is a lot simpler. A question is put to the people in a referendum and it is passed if the result is a majority of voters overall plus a majority vote in a majority of states i.e. 4 out of 6 states. Mostly these changes are rejected by the people but when there is bipartisan support it is possible for a successful outcome.
 
Yes you do have changes to your government and one recently, may still be going on. A change to your government style. Which would once again in short number of years give you a new government to learn and fix. And you are still short of shaking the crown from having driving abilities in your land.
 

Back
Top