Our Constitution  by Roger King 

How to amend the Constitution By Emma Dumain   How hard is it to amend the Constitution? Imagine last year's health care battle, multiplied by 50.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently said he would like to see the repeal of the 14th Amendment, which allows children born in the United States to automatically become citizens even if their parents are not legal residents.

The suggestion has caused quite an uproar among immigration activists, pundits and other lawmakers, but if history is any guide, nothing is likely to come of it.

Amendments must be passed by a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress and then approved by three-fourths of all 50 state legislatures. (The president has no formal role.) In addition, Congress can put a deadline on a proposed amendment, so if it is not approved within, say, seven years, the proposal is dead.

That's been the fate of a handful of amendments lucky enough to make it that far in the process. Dozens of others are introduced each year without even getting through one chamber of Congress.

Over the past half-century, amendments which have passed have been ones for which there was an unusual amount of agreement or a perfect political storm.

Mr. President, Keep the Airwaves Free by RUSH LIMBAUGH  February 20, 2009  the purpose of the Bill of Rights: to protect the citizen from the possible excesses of the federal government. The First Amendment says, in part, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." The government is explicitly prohibited from playing a role in refereeing among those who speak or seek to speak. We are, after all, dealing with political speech -- which, as the Framers understood, cannot be left to the government to police.

A President Who Won't Uphold the Constitution? Never.   by Laura Hollis   October 29, 2008   the United States Constitution is the oldest constitution in effect in the world.  And that is no accident.  It is the oldest, because it is the only constitution I am aware of that is drafted the way it is.  Specifically, other constitutions list certain rights that the government conveys upon the people. ... 

We, the people, are presumed to have all the rights, not just those written down in the Constitution.  (And the Declaration of Independence states that these rights are “endowed by our Creator;” not by any government.)

Lest this be unclear, the drafters of the Constitution put it in writing.  The Ninth Amendment says, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

And the Tenth Amendment goes further, stating explicitly that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

Is Healthcare a ‘Right’?  at the Heritage Foundation  August 21st, 2009    The problem is that Sen. Kennedy is wrong; there is no fundamental right to healthcare. When the founders wrote of our “inalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” they were referring to natural rights, things that we can enjoy on our own, without depending on government. They exist by nature—they are not entitlements to things produced by others. The rights to life and liberty are individual rights that I can pursue or neglect as I wish. Governments are instituted merely to secure these rights by providing the necessary infrastructure for their flourishing—this involves instituting a rule of law and order, providing for the public defense, and so on.

Pence, Hensarling Unveil Spending Limitation Amendment By on 3/3/10   Reps. Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, and John Campbell today proposed a constitutional amendment to limit federal spending to 20 percent of GDP. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Pence and Hensarling call it a "spending cap with real teeth." Washington would be confined to its historic share of the national economy.

The purpose of the amendment is to put a brake on the upward presure on federal spending created by the auto-pilot entitlements, the aging population, and back-to-back big-government presidents and Congreses. Because it focuses on the level of spending rather than just deficits and it is less likely to result in tax increases, the Pence-Hensarling proposal is in many ways superior to the balanced budget amendment touted by Republicans in the 1980s and 1990s. But it suffers from the limitations (no pun intended) of all proposed constitutional amendments: it will be difficult to get out of Congress, difficult to ratify, and it is by definition a goal rather than a specific set of proposals to cut government spending.