2. The Statehouse Amendment Process

.... Our founding fathers knew that politics tend to corrupt men. Therefore men alone, even good ones, could not be depended on to preserve our republic forever. Instead, separate branches of government would be created with a balance of powers between them: for the very tendency to accumulate power would motivate politicians to protect their own branch from the intrusions of the others, while safeguarding our liberties as a result.
.
.... To protect the people themselves, government would be limited in its scope and subject to our approval through elections, impeachments and amendments. And as a further counter-balance, the federal government would be answerable to the states as entities through representation in the senate, the amendment process, and in part, through the electoral college.
.
.... Times change and our fathers knew that adjustments to the Constitution might become necessary. The process was intentionally difficult so it would be very, very carefully considered and not resorted to lightly. On one hand, any change would jeopardize the balance of powers they had so carefully crafted; but on the other, clever politicians might one day circumvent their safeguards so that adjustments were, indeed, needed in order to reign them in.
.
.... The proposal of Constitutional amendments normally begin in the legislative branch and proceeds to the states for ratification (the president playing no part). But this, too, produces a difficulty. What if the problem is in the legislative branch? Certainly they could not be counted on to police themselves. Therefore a secondary method was incorporated that would, to a large degree, circumvent the Legislature:
.
.... Under Article V of the Constitution, the states may propose amendments through their own legislatures. On achieving a two-thirds majority, they would submit their application to Congress, which would call a convention to consider the constitutional amendment(s) that were proposed. When the amendment work is in final form, one of two choices would be made: to send it back to the states for ratification by a three-fourths majority, or to appeal to the people themselves through a ratifying convention. A voting referendum might serve the second purpose. If a majority could be obtained in three-fourths of the states by either method, the amendment would be accepted. Since the states themselves would be empowered as a counter-balance through the amendments suggested here, the latter method of a public voting referendum would be the method of choice, and this is assumed as our discussion moves forward.