Mark Udall: “here it comes again. I was a newly-elected Member of Congress the last time we debated this proposed constitutional…”

“here it comes again. I was a newly-elected Member of Congress the last time we debated this proposed constitutional amendment--but I was told that the House had already considered it more than once. So, it was no surprise that the debate about it sounded very rehearsed. I got the impression--and it has only been strengthened today--that many Members have heard all the arguments before. And I am pretty sure the debate will not change many minds about the proposal. But, as I said last time, this resolution strikes me as one of the oddest pieces of legislation that I've encountered--and I think it's one of the worst. For one thing, while I'm not a lawyer it seems clear to me that the language of the proposal is an invitation to litigation--in other words, to getting the courts involved even further in the law-making process. To say that Congress can define when a constitutional requirement would apply, provided that the Congressional decision is 'reasonable,' is to ask for lawsuits challenging whatever definition might be adopted. Aren't there enough lawsuits already over the tax laws? Do we need to invite more? But more important, I must oppose this proposal because it moves away from the basic principle of democracy--majority rule. If this were part of the Constitution, there would be another category of bills that would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate.”