Really?I live here and have mixed feelings about this measure.
I do think a constitution should be difficult to amend (national, state, whatever) and should require fairly broad support. I know many here are hyper focused on getting abortion on the ballot but it can go both ways, as a conservative group can get could just as easily a measure of their own on the ballot now, and Ohio liberals (shrinking by the day) may end up regretting the day something like that happens as they will likely not be able to defeat it at the ballot.
All I'm saying is that it's not as straightforward as it seems.
Because we've never had majority rule for constitutional amendments.Really?
What the fuck do you have against "majority rule"?
The people in state houses* all across the country are elected to "REPRESENT" the people that elected them, NOT to "rule" the people that elected them.
* - same for city hall, county courthouse, and Washington DC.
Currently due to gerrymandering and dirty tricks we have minority rule. By minority I mean Republican legislators.Because we've never had majority rule for constitutional amendments.
Otherwise red states would start amending their constitutions overnight to oppress anyone they don't like, because of MaJoRiTy RuLe.
Try to think two steps ahead.
I don't disagree, but that's a different matter entirely.Currently due to gerrymandering and dirty tricks we have minority rule. By minority I mean Republican legislators.
Naw, I'll just stick with the FACTS.Because we've never had majority rule for constitutional amendments.
Otherwise red states would start amending their constitutions overnight to oppress anyone they don't like, because of MaJoRiTy RuLe.
Try to think two steps ahead.
They are going to try again! Republican corruption knows no bounds.
Shhh, remember facts are woke, alt-facts are the real truthNaw, I'll just stick with the FACTS.
Every Amendment to the Ohio Constitution that has been enacted since 1912 has been enacted by a simple majority voting in favor. Below is a list of about 35 since 1990.
I don't disagree, but that's a different matter entirely.
Although when it comes to Ohio you have to remember that Trump and JD Vance won their elections here fairly comfortably. Gerrymandering or not, this is a solid red state and I think the legislature would have reflected that regardless of gerrymandering or not.
How does anyone get votes from women when stating "women in abusive marriages should stay"?I don't disagree, but that's a different matter entirely.
Although when it comes to Ohio you have to remember that Trump and JD Vance won their elections here fairly comfortably. Gerrymandering or not, this is a solid red state and I think the legislature would have reflected that regardless of gerrymandering or not.
Ohio's amendments that passed with less than 60% approval.
But republicans that can't see past the end of their dick are too stupid to realize this 60% would apply to every future amendment.
- Home rule power for liquor sales — 50.5% (1914).
- 10-mill limit on unvoted real estate taxes —59.6% (1933).
- Home rule for counties — 53.2% (1933).
- Eliminate straight-ticketing voting — 57.3% (1949).
- Raise the state minimum wage — 56.6% (2006).
- Allow a casino in Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Toledo — 52.9% (2009).
- Deleting the words “white male” from voter qualifications — 55.9% (1923).
- 6-year term for probate judges — 55.2% (1947).
- Create a State Board of Education with the power to appoint a Superintendent of Public Instruction — 56.8% (1953).
- Getting rid of the word “white” when it comes to qualifications of males to serve in the Ohio National Guard, racially integrating the Ohio National Guard — 58.1% (1953).
- 4-year terms for the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, and secretary of state. It also limits the governor to two terms — 55.5% (1954).
- 4-year terms for State senators — 57.3% (1956),
- Allow women to serve in the Ohio National Guard and widen the age range to those between 17-67 years old — 50.1% (1961).
- Blocked special interests from using constitutional amendments to create monopolies — 51.5% (2015).
Of course, they are probably pissed some of these passed, such as "Deleting the words “white male” from voter qualifications" or "Getting rid of the word “white” when it comes to qualifications of males to serve in the Ohio National Guard, racially integrating the Ohio National Guard" or "Allow women to serve in the Ohio National Guard"
They no longer view themselves as "representatives" of the people that elected them, but as "rulers" of the people that elected them.Methinks if the Repubs hold a supermajority in their state legislatures they will simply ignore the laws they pass if it's in their disfavor or rewrite them whenever it's their advantage to do so. For the Repubs, having a supermajority is tantamount to running a dictatorship in their states whereby they are free to eliminate any means to beat them at the polls. A somewhat watered down Putin Plan as it were of which it seems they are furiously working at employing. Their endgame has always been to run the nation from a minority party status. It's what powers their clown car's lurching backfires and fits of unquieted rage.
They are going to try again! Republican corruption knows no bounds.
"I've said for months now that there's an assault coming on our constitution, and that hasn't changed. I'm just getting started in the fight to protect Ohio's values."
So I guess the values of the majority of the state aren't considered the values of that state? These guys have really just started saying the quiet part out loud.
Yeah, that really is an amazing quote. He's going to protect "Ohio's values" from...the majority of the people who actually live in Ohio? Just sums up the Republican position on a host of things.
I also am not a fan of a bare majority winning on major issues (Brexit being a prime example), but to me here the main fault of the GOP is how they relentlessly game the system. They decided August votes are bad for a number of reasons and outlawed them a few years ago. All of sudden they was to cram something through this year and reverse the rules (statute). Even if I agreed with GOP principles (whatever they are these days, I certainly couldn't define them now) I detest their constant gaming and changing of the rules. Mitch McConnell is the poster boy for such gaming in the US Senate and we have the Supreme Court we currently have as a result.
Classic GOP strategy keep putting the same shit on the ballot until people get tired of it and it passes. They only have to win once .So the people of Ohio made it perfectly clear that they are capable of deciding if they are going to surrender their rights to a minority, and the minority responds says you are too stupid to make your own decisions. You were simply confused, so we are going to give you another chance to surrender your rights.
Ohio GOP may try again on Issue 1
i hope the voters kick the GOP while they're down by 14 points. i'd love to see the margin increase, and then have them absolutely routed in elections.So the people of Ohio made it perfectly clear that they are capable of deciding if they are going to surrender their rights to a minority, and the minority responds says you are too stupid to make your own decisions. You were simply confused, so we are going to give you another chance to surrender your rights.
Ohio GOP may try again on Issue 1
The only strategy republicans have is to tell the same lie enough times and people will begin to believe it.Classic GOP strategy keep putting the same shit on the ballot until people get tired of it and it passes. They only have to win once .
Not racial minorities. Minority opinions/beliefs/religious sects.
The primary concern was that a simple majority of states could subvert the freedoms and rights of a minority of states. No doubt tied to the issue of slavery.
You can read the reasons why here.
Article V: Historical Background
www.law.cornell.edu
Article Five of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I'm not arguing in favor of this, nor in favor of this for state constitutions. Only showing WHY the 2/3 rule was made for the federal constitution.
Seems pretty clear he got the second part of that claim completely wrong.James Madison (writing in The Federalist No. 43):
It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults.
Stockholm syndrome.How does anyone get votes from women when stating "women in abusive marriages should stay"?