05-11-2023, 01:01 PM
(05-11-2023, 12:32 PM)pally Wrote: I don't think I am contradicting myself. Expansion of the courts and House actually opens up access to our government. There are logical reasons to increase the size of the House, Fed Judicial Districts, and SCOTUS including workload and proper representation.
There is no reason to change the threshold for amending the Constitution other than fear of losing 2 upcoming votes. Ohio has never gone overboard with amending the Constitution. And to sneak through on an August special election that just months ago the same people made illegal. What is so prevailing that they are shoving it onto the electorate in 3 months instead of placing it on the November general election ballot? An election that far more people would participate in. Oh yeah...the abortion question will be on the Nov ballot. Can't let that happen. And if this new change is so important, why only require a 50% vote for it to pass? Shouldn't a 60& threshold require 60%
I understand your arguments, and I agree with some of them. But when you cite historical precedent as a reason for arguing against a course of action you cannot then turn around and argue for far more radical changes to rules in place even longer than the one you're defending. Not if you care about having a consistent position. It's similar to the people who complained about "judicial activism" when Roe was overturned, while appearing completely oblivious to the fact that the original Roe ruling could, much more easily, be interpreted in the same way.
As for changing rules for political reasons, I completely agree with you, it's wrong and a double edged sword. What you use for yourself now will eventually be used against you.
