Failed Constitutional Amendments | History Teacher Reacts 

Which failed amendments do you think SHOULD be passed?

The difficulty of amending the constitution and passing federal laws is a feature not a bug.

The constitution should absolutely be hard to amend. If it was easier, basic rights could be overturned far too easily.

If I remember correctly, didn't that proposed one making war declaration a referendum also say that if it passed all of those who voted yes would have to enlist?

The fact that "No taxation without representation" is a partisan thing now in America is just disturbingly hilarious.

On the war amendment, wasn't ww2 the last time the US officially "declared war" thus defeating the purpose? Or would they try to enforce the spirit of it?

The reason Washington DC is not part of a state is because the Founding Fathers were worried about a state having too much power over the federal government, especially since Pennsylvania refused to aid Congress in an attempted coup in 1783. In 1783, the war was winding to a close, and thousands of soldiers were getting ready to go home and start a new life in the new nation they had fought and died for. There was one problem, though: the Continental Congress had fallen behind on their pay. This had been a perennial problem during the war. Congress controlled the Continental Army and was responsible for funding it, but since Congress had no power to tax, it had to depend on the states for funding. And the states were not exactly known for actually providing the money they promised. Combine this with perennial corruption and mismanagement along the supply lines, and the average American soldier spent the war underpaid and under-supplied. Soldiers mutinied time and again, and while sometimes Congress was able to negotiate a settlement for a particular unit’s grievances, the root problem remained. Finally, on June 20, 1783, 400 American soldiers decided that they had been ignored and mistreated long enough. They marched up to Independence Hall in Philadelphia to confront Congress. This could very well have been the end of the Continental Congress, right then and there, but luckily for them Alexander Hamilton managed to persuade the mutineers to let them adjourn for the day to consider their grievances and find a compromise. In fact, the Hamilton and several of his fellow Congressmen used the tiny breathing space the soldiers gave them to meet in secret that night. They wrote an urgent message to the government of Pennsylvania begging for aid. The state’s leaders, for reasons that have never been quite clear, refused the Congress’s request. Perhaps they were sympathetic to the mutineers, or thought the matter could be resolved peacefully? Whatever the reason, Congress decided not to wait around to find out and instead skipped town, setting up shop in Princeton, New Jersey. They had survived the coup, but had seen just how precarious their position was. The experience was one of the key reasons we now have Washington, D.C. as our nation’s capital - if the states couldn’t be relied on to protect the federal government, then the federal government would be better served to not be based in any state.

Australia's Constitution is based for most parts on the US or UK constitutions, whichever suited Australia better. But changing the contitution is a part where we differ greatly from the US, and the UK at that time (IIRC). Our contitution is changed by Referendum (direct vote). First a bill to hold a referendum needs to pass through Parliament. Then everyone votes on a yes or no question, with the referendum passing if both a majority overall, and a majority is reached in a majority of states vote yes. added an 'a'

6:33 Just two, Wyoming (last) and Vermont (50th). So, if treated like a state, it'd rank 49th in terms of population. However, trends have it passing Alaska pretty soon too, so...

Rome fell when Consuls started getting exemptions to their term limits term limits are good for long term stability

The best argument i could think of for making the constitution easier to ammend is that it keeps the power with the people that the government is supposed to work for. When it is nearly impossible to ammend it makes it much more difficult for the laws and rights to change as the will and desires of the people start to change.

Terry I wanna see you dunk that basket on the door

except you can't vote people out... cause MOST citizens dont even know who their senators are, how they vote, and what they stand for, they just go 'oh this person is has my letter, i vote them' theres only 2 real options, and neither are good or actually care about the voters :/ i actually HATE the way we normally vote, when i voted in person i had NO IDEA what i was doing, sure i was 18, but i didnt know the names what they stood for, who the judges were, what the amendments and such were i essentially just voted randomly for everyone but obama x.x when the pandemic hit we signed up to vote by mail, getting to sit down with my ballot and LOOK UP EVERYTHING and really educate myself on everyone on the ballot and the amendments, i do not intend to ever go back to in person voting and think it should be required for people to do while voting, thats the only way wed ever have a chance to get rid of horrible people who stay in power out of ignorance x.x

One problem with the term limits thing. We have term limits for the president so why not congress. The same things would apply

Id like to see something close to the Balanced Budget Amendment. I do think we need some sort of debt to operate, but seeing how it is now, there should be a percentage cap, based on the debt to GDP ratio.

So for a German perspective: The way how the US constitutinal admendments work is pretty complicated but especially given how important it is it makes sense. Now the equal rights Admendment is a good Idea it sill baffles me that it isn't expisevly stated that everyone should be equal under the law. The balanced budget one is pretty ironic considering the Republican and Regens specific spending habits. it would be important that there is a rule allowing for suspension in case of crisis, but otherwise, it is not necessarily a bad idea in Germany whe actually passed a similar adition to our constitution. The term limit one is interesting, I can't think of an office in Germany that has a term limit but elected officials are a lot less powerful and easier to replace in Germany than in the US. Also we elected a lot less people directly: the member of our Parliament ( Think Hose of representatives) have to be party affiliate and the balance of power ther is determined by a national popular vote. Our "Congress" is formed by the individual state governments so not elected directly at all. However, given how fuckt the US voting system is more term limits sond like a good stop gap measure. Electing everyone via single transferable vote would be a better idea (yes, including the President directly). A party system would be even better but let's keep it at least somewhat realistic. In general, outright excluding people from the democratic process be it because of missing stathod criminal convictions or voter obstruction is extremely suspect to me.

While the idea of a balanced budget seems strange regarding the federal government, it’s worth noting 49 out of the 50 states have some form of a balanced budget requirement (the exception is Vermont and they still balance their budget anyway). Also, that last amendment inspired the name of the earth in the show Futurama.

Absolutely should be difficult to make any change to the fundamental base law of the land without proper support.

I think that such a high bar for passage of laws and amendments is necessary to ensure that laws have broad support. The flipside of seeming government inaction and hyperpartisanship is knowing that an unpopular law can't be forced through by a slim majority that doesn't represent the will of a sizable portion of the American people. Thanks for this video, Mr. Terry! I'm always impressed by the amount of detail and context you provide on your reaction videos.

For reference, 12 out of 12,000 means that just 0.00225 of the Amendments got through the ratification process. Absolutely crazy

I have an idea to improve the Ludlow Amendment: 1. Unless attacked first, the citizens will vote as to whether we as a nation will go to war 2. If the motion to war passes, those who vote in favor of going to war can be drafted 3. If the majority of the state you officially reside in votes against the motion, you cannot be drafted even if you voted in favor, but anyone can still fight voluntarily 4. Part 3 does not apply to those with residences in multiple states or without a domestic residence, therefore, see Part 2 5. If the motion to war fails, those who voted in favor are given leave to attack the group that they voted to go to war against (maybe don't include this part XD)

To answer the question of why DC isn’t a state: it’s basically the same reason the Vatican is an independent country. Meaning that, to protect the central authority from local meddling, the central government is given an area over which it will exercise direct governance.

20:48 Just ask Ancient Athens how amazing that turned out... oh wait (to put it mildly, that first part was sarcasm). Keep in mind the people who opposed the Vietnam War were the minority until the Tet offense, and anyone who knows anything about military history knows that there is a long list of wars that were a complete disaster and/or should never have been fought that the public supported.

I got a marines conscription ad halfway though the video.

I think term limits is a good idea even if its a long term limit

I mean the first and foremost idea behind most "direct" democratic systems is that you only vote on something if you have a clear stake in the outcome of the vote...

If women aint required to serve then im not serving either

You should watch cgp grey us flags video

Keeping on the topic of the US, CGP Grey just uploaded a tier ranking of the state flags, I think it'd be cool to see your opinions compared to his

A problem with constitutional amendments is that they now only functionally happen with the Supreme Court getting to decide how the constitution is interpreted.

It is disheartening that the Balanced Budget Amendment came closer than the Equal Rights Amendment.

The three amendments I think that have the best chance are 1. Term limits. It is so, common for congressman to gain power through tenure, once they have served long enough it's almost impossible to get them out. 2. The balanced budget amendment 3. Some kind of reform of being a citizen if you're born in the United States. This may not be required if the right immigration reform legislation is passed. 4. There seems to be a consensus that there was election fraud in the 1960 presidential election, Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of election fraud in.Texas, there is mathematical evidence the 2016 and the 2020 had massive election fraud, so I think election reform of some kind would be much more important then getting rid of the electoral college.

The issue term limits addresses is the incumbent advantage. Someone already in office has name recognition among people who don't pay attention to the actions of their elected officials, making it harder to unseat them even after a scandal. It also allows a feedback loop of people trading favors in office for support in an election precisely because they do have the knowledge and experience needed to get done what their backers want done. And the "knowledge and experience" argument also falls apart in practice. Nobody wants their legislators to be better able to manipulate the system for their own benefit - but that's the type of knowledge and experience they gain from unlimited terms. They very demonstrably have never gained knowledge and experience that helped with representing their people or being familiar with the things they make decisions on. That's not to say those with term limits do better at it. They don't. But they also don't do any worse. Both make decisions based on partisan stances and the persona they adopted when running for office. They outright leave the chamber floor while other viewpoints than the one they hold are being discussed in floor debate. They are antagonistic with expert witnesses called into committees. They do no research of their own and instead just have their staff put together bullet points of cherry picked claims or quotes. The only actual downside is that you can't keep someone you like in office indefinitely. Which, ironically, is sometimes the real reason they get pushed for by politicians. California infamously pushed through its 2 term limit for governor after one that was too popular to get rid of.

12:00 Rather than _Term Limits_ I would prefer to see a limit to the amount one can spent to get elected. If we topped the expenditure one Congress Person or Senator could spend on their elections we wouldn't be in the position where Congress People are forced to raise tens of thousands of dollars per month for their next campaign the entire time they're supposed to be doing the People's Business. Congressional Members get elected from a small section of their home state. If they could not spend more than the job pays it would eliminate the advantage of some lobby willing to cut a check for favorable and level the playing field for others who may not have a war chest to fund them.

How many votes did the ‘abolish-the-Senate’ get in the senate

I can agree to term limits on House Members to 12 years...and Senators to 18 years. HOWEVER, I also feel that an Ex-Member of Congress could return to the Congress, after a 12 year waiting period. This would allow another person to serve in that same House or Senate seat, breathing room, to do the job..without having to worry about his/her predecessor from waging an immediate comeback. The 12 year period would allow an Ex-Member to pursue other interests outside of Congress. Maybe seek another political office such as State Legislative Seat, Mayoralty, or Governor's seat. After the 12 year seat, the Ex-Member can return. He/her unique expertise as a parliamentarian might be needed for a new Era. I also believe that an Ex-Member of Congress should NOT be allowed to serve on the personal staff of a Member of Congress, from his or her state (OR from a Congressional District that is adjacent to his/her former Congressional District) during that 12 year period. For example, if a Member of the House is required to step down after 12 years, then he (or she) could hypothetically serve as Chief of Staff under his/her successor for the next 12 years. I wouldn't object to the Ex-Member serving on the staff of another member of Congress, from a different state (not touching his/her former District) OR on the staff of a Standing Committee, such as Armed Services. But that Ex-Member cannot participate in politics of his/her own state, while on the committee. (I hate to use the term "political dynasty", but if it's time to "pass the torch", in terms of representation in the Congress, it cannot be a nominal passing of the torch.

The 17th amendment was a MASSIVE mistake. It went a long way towards reducing the notoriety of state level politicians, which both pushed more and more issues up to the federal level, and allowed state level governments to become dysfunctional hives of mediocrity. Now, all of the attention is paid to the federal government, even though the state governments actually affect citizens daily lives much more, and most people can't name even one of their local state representatives or elected officials.

How do amendments to the constitution work in your country? Which ones should have passed, what on earth does that imply? Odd number ones are accepted and even number ones are rejected ?

I know this isn't a major thing in this discussion, but I had to grit my teeth each time the narrator said Birch Bayh's last name; it's pronounced like the word "bye", not "bay". As I was growing up, his son Evan served a couple of term as Indiana's governor before moving on to the senate.

To make and pass amendments, instead of 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of the states, in my opinion it should be be 2/3 congress and then a nation wide vote or more than 1/2 congress and a nation wide vote. Oh, and all representatives, state or national, should be able to be recalled at any time by their constituents.

I love when they say you can't just change an amendment when that is exactly what an amendment means.

The change to the process for the selection of Senators in the 17th amendment is one of, if not, the worst ratified amendments.

I just think that residents of DC should vote and be represented as Virginians. EASY.

Nothing is cut and dry as you say. Many think there are only "two sides" and don't realize there are actually multiple types of people in politics. What I don't understand is why there is always an excuse of "family values" to not pass something. I'm glad it gets passed anyway. People should all be equal. Term limits should be passed. Most people I know agree. Sometimes new ideas are good for the people. If they passed the Bay celler ammendment, we would become a full democracy like ancient greece instead of a representative democracy, which is what a republic is, where we vote for representatives. I think that DC should become a state. It pretty much is anyway. DC has 712,000 residents, more than Vermont and Wyoming and comparable with other states including Delaware, Alaska, and several others. DC takes on the responsibilities of a statehood without enjoying all the rights and privileges embodied in the U.S. Constitution often referred as “taxation without representation”.

Honourable mention for a failed amendment: The eighteenth, got ratified, still a failure.

I absolutely think it should be hard to change laws. Especially with thing on what the government can and can't do.

But not to falsely impeach someone for the fact your mad because your person lost to them

The 21st amendment to appeal prohibition. Congress called on the states to ratified by the state conventions. So Article V was used. But not to amend. But to un-amend?

Being from Connecticut, I am a fan of the Electoral College. Those who want to cancel it really just want to be ruled by the three big states. Deleware might as well go back to England if that happens. People who hate the EC simply don't understand why it was created and why it needs to stay. I once wrote an article advocating for an EC on a state level to elwct our governor. As for DC statehood, this should not be allowed. It is nothing against the people that live there. It has everything to do with the original plan that no state could claim the national capitol and thus supremacy. Also, a bit of trivia is that there was originally area that was in the district and not the city, not sure if that is still the case. Term limits are generally a good idea but would probably be phased in, because most of congressional seats would be up at the same time and this would nearly perpetually come due at the same time. Not sure what pattern the phases should take, but it could be done. The 17th should probably either be repealed or juat combine the two houses. Under the 17th, they are essentially both houses of representatives. The biggest complaint at the time was it was a house of millionaires, which it is again. I have met several proponents of an Article 5 convention. Sadly they base most of their claims on how this would work on scholarly articles that are not binding on congress. They also depend on a couple of academic mock conventions which went smoothly because they had no stakes at all.

If politics were kept out of the decisions, it should be easier to pass laws. However, we can’t count on our “representatives” to vote for their constituents. The constitution may say We the People, however they are still them, and we are screwed.

The problem with having a 51% majority to pass laws is that I don’t think it’s enough to really say it’s properly agreed upon but also with how divided the US is your gonna get like nothing through if everything has to be 2/3rds majority

I think term limits would work better for the people and help curb corruption in senate and the house.

I’m Polish, so my opinion is more towards my country, but the idea of a “constitution” and “amendments” is very much universal (we where the first European country adopt one, after all). Amendments and more of day-to-day legislation should be put up for popular votes imo. There is technology to make it happen, the only barrier is the general lack of actual legal and economic knowledge among the people (in every country of their own system) and well, politicians don’t want an educated public able to make decisions for itself and hold them accountable for obvious reasons

Term limits is a must

Ross Perot was a serious 3rd party candidate.

Lets establish the UNITES STATES OF EARTH! There is no dream too big!

Wait. I thought the amendments have to be selectively incorporated into the states.

There are probably only 3 amendments to the constitution that I really want, those being 1. Repealing the 16th Amendment (getting rid of income tax) 2. Fixing the Commerce Clause (it’s way too broad right now, and gets used to justify Congress doing whatever it wants) 3. Congressional Term Limits (maybe something like 4 terms for the Senate, and something like 6 terms for the House, but IDK it could be more than that, I just think if the President is term limited, Congress should be too.

I support a direct popular vote election for POTUS. I think candidates should have to work everywhere for votes. There should be no such thing as a "safe state." For now, I don't have any other amendment that I am firmly in support of.

Bayh Seller would be more democratic

I think the Balanced Budget and Term Limit Amendments should be passed. The Ludlow amendment should also be passed. I don’t think it ever will cause politicians make money by causing wars and sending Americans citizens to die while they sit back and enjoy the spoils.

It's a wet dream for sure, but Congressional term limits would be really cool! However, that would likely require the state legislature convention method because Congress would never vote themselves out of power. The Balanced Budget Amendment would've been good for this country also. For one, it would've tremendously reduced the wasteful spending that the federal government is so VERY GUILTY of on a yearly basis. That would in turn keep our money more meaningful, and as such, with more worth. The Ludlow Amendment also sounds great! It, uh, definitely would've helped prevent a few recent, uh, tumults, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Then again, I may be heavily-biased toward the amendment because I'm pretty anti-war and don't view things like the draft favorably.

If it were just a simple majority our rights would be so limited and changed on a whim. In the 90’s the conservative Christians would have passed amendments would have passed while the Obama tenure would have reversed those and passed others just as deplorable. As far as DC goes, the population should revert to Maryland, just as Alexandria (Virginia part of DC) reverted to Virginia.

Some of these could have probably passed had they been included with Amendments but did pass for example term limits should have been added to the direct vote for senator amendment. Equal rights is one I honestly never see passing because on paper it sounds good, but once you break down what it actually means I doubt it will ever get enough support to pass fully, though I am surprised it passed by 35 states and there wasn't an article 5 convention after the time limit ran out. Balanced budget could pass if it included a change in tax law that instituded a flat tax with no exemptions. Had manifest destiny kept pushing on even though it's wacky the US of Earth could have passed at some point. Voting on war could possibly pass if a) military personnel were excluded and b) it was limited to a draft and not actually the war itself. DC will probably never become a state because a threat to either sides power will never get enough support to pass.

Considering we have already had some bad amendments pass the process, it's probably good that it is hard.

Newt and Clinton worked together to balance the budget...more reasonable times, gone for now.

While I certainly don’t want to go to war, I think requiring a majority vote to go to war would allow near-peer adversaries to use grey zone tactics on an even larger scale than they do now.

I'll be disappointed if he doesnt go over the Drafting of the Declaration of Independence and the Written complaints and suggestions that didnt pass. The most notable and most important for this generation to hear was from Thomas Jefferson. He said that it's impossible to have a free country and Slavery, and went on a rant that any sane person today would agree with. Of course since they needed the southern states to win the war, the complaint was voted down and didn't end slavery with The Declaration of Independence... But some of the Founding Fathers wanted to.

I believe the ERA one has the best chance to pass .... but i think most people would be disappointed because most would be like "yeah women are gonna be treated equal by law" but real equality is not just the good stuff but the negative stuff too .....goodbye title XI ...Hello Female draft .. goodbye most protections for domestic abuse victims ... hello more single fathers with primary custody .....the list would continue

DC is part of Maryland period thy want the right to vote fine give Maryland more senators

Get rid of the electoral college and let the people’s vote count

Well if you ask so nicely, you really should take up the good work of Frederick Muehlenberg and get rid of those awful mouthnoises you call English and switch over to a superior language like German. :P

5:04 “everyone who was ‘anti-women’s sufferage’” is a weird way to say “Literally everyone who isn’t in a vegetative state.”

Here’s some information, there is more people in the District of Columbia than Wyoming, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin combined. DC only gets 1 electoral college point compared to those 3 states. The set of facts most politicians don’t want to talk about is that those 3 states 98% of the population is white Americans. 95.3% of the District of Columbia is Black Americans. What these 4 locations have in common is that about 75% of the people live near/ on the poverty line of America.

I think the difficulty of amending the constitution is a little too difficult. It shouldn’t be easy, but one of the requirements should be lowered. I would like 2/3rds of the states ratify, and 1/2 propose an amendment.

2:00 Yes, it should be that hard to make an amendment. If 49% of the people think something is a bad idea, it may just be a bad idea. Smaller percentages of the population have been able to make vast differences. It's one of the reasons we have an electoral college, and the reason we don't have a straight Democracy, but a Representative Republic. Other wise, 51% of the people could vote to force the other 49% to give up all their lands and property... or something as outrageous.

The 19th should never have passed.

The ERA not getting past hurt to hear

In my opinion, I think the one abolishing the electoral college makes the most sense or at least is up there. It doesn’t make any sense that someone who does not have the support of a majority of the people would be able to get into office. If one side wants the popular vote, they should have popular policies and ideas. I don’t understand the argument that smaller states would lose out on this, we’re all Americans and our votes should count the same regardless of which state you live in. All other elections in state are by popular vote, why not the presidency?

Just that there are more radical democrats than conservative democrats

US Supreme Court term limits would seem like a good amendment.

I think a key issue with the US constition is that not only is it difficult to change, but it also encompasses sooo many policies that dont particularly need to be written into a constitution. Firearms Ownership is always brought up, for good reason - why must your national constitution, the thing that determines which laws are legal and the framework of government deal with something like owning firearms. In other countries this is treated like any other law, Parliament can change it by a simple majority. They managed to pass the ERA without an ammendment, by putting it through other laws, so why even have this process. German Basic Law is fundamentally impossible to change, yet that doesnt matter because Basic Law doesn't really do all that much but set up the rules for the German political system and VERY fundamental basic human rights. If you're going to have a fixed constitution, fine, but attaching rather partisan policies to that is a MASSIVE flaw. Even if both sides evolve to agree that nope, that particular law is terrible, a small minority can prevent the vast majority being able to change it (simply look at firearm ownership and stats of how many americans want firearm legislation changed).

First

Brexit tool 51.89% and based on a lot of lies, anything that big, needs at least 65%, 90% turnout and many formal discussions where lies can be have consequences, which is not the case in many scenarios.

The ones that should be passed: 1. ERA 2. D.C. Voting 3. Balanced Budget 4. Congressional Term Limits 5. Bayh-Celler 6. Ludlow

Which ones deserve to pass? Direct popular vote for President for sure. DC statehood for sure. ERA probably (the complaint about alimony is stupid, since alimony shouldn't exist at all). Term limits probably. Some of these are just BEGGING for an Article 5 convention. You kept saying that that things like term limits and abolition of the Senate will never pass because they won't vote themselves out of office. Don't leave it up to them! That's what the Convention is for.

The constitution ammendment process should be dropped to half plus one. The convention method should require a third of states to initiate and 2/3rds to ratify. Balanced budget ammendment is moronic.

It`s a pity the 2nd amendment didn`t fail.

Sweden has no term limits what so ever and we our country does so much better than the USA lol.

Oh I just want to quickly say at this point I am starting to support the idea of a direct democracy in the USA oh and for those conservatives in the USA who think that my idea will ruin the USA please be tone deaf elsewhere as well as go move to Russia, Belarus, hungry or some other dictatorship and stay in said country’s I just mentioned in this comment okay.😅🙄😑🤨🧐🤔

Personally I dream of the day all the world is American. But I don't think direct democracy or any type of government we have as of now would ever be able to control the planet without full armed forces and nukes set to explode at every country if they try to rebel. Otherwise I support the empire plan and hope one day an ambitious American can bring this dream to fruition