CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS PROCESS: How To Force Congress To Do What It Does NOT Want To Do Because Of Our Legislators’ Own Self-Interests; But It Is Essential To Achieving Democratic Control Of America & Reversing The Present Status Of Corporate Ownership! When Mere Legislation, Which Can Be Reversed, Simply Won’t Do!




Congress has specified the state legislature ratification method for all but one amendment. The ratifying convention method was used for the Twenty-first Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1933.


Since the turn of the 20th century, amendment proposals sent to the states for ratification have generally contained a seven-year ratification deadline, either in the body of the amendment or in the resolving clause of the joint resolution proposing it. The Constitution does not expressly provide for a deadline on the state legislatures’ or state ratifying conventions’ consideration of proposed amendments. In Dillon v. Gloss (1921), the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress—if it so desires—could provide a deadline for ratification. An amendment with an attached deadline that is not ratified by the required number of states within the set time period is considered inoperative and rendered moot.


An amendment becomes operative as soon as it reaches the three-fourths of the states threshold. Then, once certified by the Archivist of the United States, it officially takes its place as an article of the Constitution.



Tabacco: One of the favorite Corporate Tricks is Infiltration of Groups, whose goals oppose their own. Those Infiltrators (aka ‘Judas Goats’) then lead the ‘Sheep’ down a ‘Path to Nowhere’, instead of following Paths, which might actually be effective.


Tabacco believes has been infiltrated, co-opted, financed and misled by the very Capitalists & Politicos they oppose. This process is not dissimilar to the one in which male insects are rendered sterile, then released to impregnate females of that species with worthless semen as a method of population control.


Whenever Activists unite to defeat a Common Enemy, they must guard against the ‘STERILE INSECT TECHNIQUE’!


The Police use a Variation of this Technique when they encourage, finance and supply Wannabe Terrorists, without financing or materiel, wishing to attempt SABOTAGE. Without Police assistance, not even an aborted attempt would ensue!


The FBI under cross-dressing, closeted Negro, J. Edgar Hoover, infiltrated Black organizations (Cointelpro) to subvert their Rights of Free Speech, Peaceful Assembly & Peaceful Protest. I do not even refer to gun-toting, police-shooting groups, which bypass Peaceful Protest; I mean SNCC, NAACP, etc, etc.



Tabacco: Now we know WHO, WHEN, WHERE & HOW! Next we consider WHY & WHAT!





The Concept of an American Tricameral Government [Separation of 3-Parts of Federal Government: 1-Congress, 2-Executive (President) & 3-Judicial (Supreme Court)] is a MYTH! To become President, being either a Democrat or a Republican is essential! To receive a nomination to the High Court, one must be selected by the President with Advise & Consent from the Democratic/Republican Senate. The Idea that this represents SEPARATION OF POWERS is ABSURD!



It is painfully apparent that everyone in America is under some sort of “Supervision” except for our Tricameral Governing Bodies – Democrats & Republicans! That “Supervision” is a MYTH!


Note the Creation of a 3rd Party, which is the ‘obvious’ Solution, is both untenable and pointless. The Real Cause of our ‘democratic crisis’ is Corporate Control, not our Virtual 1-Party Political System! If a Third Party gained traction, our Corporate Masters would simply make Contributions and/or Kickbacks to the elected members of that 3rd Party and continue Business-as-Usual!


Tabacco’s 3rd Political Party Axiom





Henceforth all Federal Legislation should enable Individuals and restrict Corporations and Government, not the other way around as it now is! The Surveillance Society we now have is basically the end result of EXCUSES, not REASONS, intended to protect Legislators and Corporatists, not the American Public!











Note that none of these proposed Constitutional Amendment Initiatives can be left to the Caprices of Congress and are essential to prevent some of the Worst Abuses of Congressional Power currently perpetrated on the American People!


1 – Anti-Corporate Lobbying Amendment (Note: If Lobbying is Unconstitutional except for AARP, ASPCA etc.,

a) Congressmen can no longer become Lobbyists,

b) Astroturfing will cease to exist,

c) Declaring Wars because of Corporate sponsorship aka ‘War Profiteering’ will end)


2 – Tillman Act 1907 Amendment vs. Corporate Political Contributions


3 – Whistleblower Protection Act Amendment


4 – Living Wage Amendment based on Cost Of Living Index On State-by-State Annual Increments (This obviates Congressional Action in the future)


5 – Charter Schools Amendment Outlawing Competition with Public Schools (That was not their Original Purpose – Privatized Charters have exceeded their mandate)


6 – Anti-Corporate Welfare/Earmarks Amendment


7 – Failure Standards Amendment is required to prevent Government Abominations in plain sight such as TARP! The MSM focused on which Corporations got the Loot, but declined to report what happened to the Paid Back With Interest Loans once your Government got its hands on it again. The ‘General Fund’ is NOT where those Monies would end up if they were to be used to Pay Down the National Debt!


8 – GPI/Genuine Progress Indicator Amendment requiring Federal Government to use it, not GDP or GNP as Primary Economic Indicator because of the misleading messages those Acronyms disseminate!


9 – Military Industrial Contractor Limitation Amendment to restrict these MERCENARIES from actively participating in Genocide, Occupation & Exploitation of Citizens in Foreign Countries without Supervisions required for our Soldiers while receiving Salaries that dwarf those of our Military Enlistees!


10 – Legislative Transparency Amendment: All Major Legislation must be made available to the Public & to the Media at least 30 days prior to any Vote in the House or Senate, whichever comes first. (This is required to prevent Legislation such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership/ TPP from being adopted before and without anybody knowing what it contains.)


11 – Supreme Court Appointments Amendment: I don’t have a positive recommendation on how to fix this particular Anathema, but I do have negative advisories – the only way to depoliticize the Court is by removing the nominating & consenting procedures from the President and Congress. Justices should be appointed for their knowledge, wisdom, experience and fairness, not for their Party Affiliations. And their terms, like that of the President, must be limited! The Citizens United Ruling is an Abomination, which honest, non-political Judges would never tolerate!


12 – Congressional Term Limits Amendment: House Members may not serve more than 3-two year terms and Senators may not serve more than 2-six year terms, in both cases this applies to the individual, not his or her State of residency. Moving to another State will not circumvent the Law!

(Spain permits Bullfighting, but the Spaniards are wise enough to know that an experienced Bull is a supreme danger – likewise with experienced Legislators!)


13 – Glass-Steagall Act / Volker Rule Amendment:




Below is the entire Wikipedia Article, excerpted at the top of this Post:


Constitutional amendment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A constitutional amendment refers to the modification of the Constitution of a nation or state. In many jurisdictions the text of the constitution itself is altered; in others the text is not changed, but the amendments change its effect.


Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure that is more stringent than that required of ordinary legislation. Examples of such special procedures include supermajorities in the legislature, or direct approval by the electorate in a referendum, or even a combination of two or more different special procedures. A referendum to amend the constitution may also be triggered in some jurisdictions by popular initiative.


Australia and Ireland provide examples of constitutions requiring that all amendments are first passed by the legislature before being submitted to the people; in the case of Ireland, a simple majority of those voting at the electorate is all that is required, whereas a more complex set of criteria must be met in Australia (a majority of voters in a majority of states is also necessary). Switzerland has procedure similar to that of Australia.


The special procedures for the amendment of some constitutions have proven to be so exacting that of proposed amendments either few (8 Amendments out of 44 proposed), as in Australia, or none, as in Japan, have been passed over a period of several decades. In contrast, the constitution of the U.S. state of Alabama has been amended over 800 times since 1901.



Form of changes to the text

There are a number of formal differences, from one jurisdiction to another, in the manner in which constitutional amendments are both originally drafted and written down once they become law. In some jurisdictions, such as the Republic of Ireland, Estonia, and Australia, constitutional amendments originate as bills and become laws in the form of acts of parliament. This may be the case notwithstanding the fact that a special procedure is required to bring an amendment into force. Thus, for example, in the Republic of Ireland and Australia although amendments are drafted in the form of Acts of Parliament they cannot become law until they have been approved in a referendum. By contrast, in the United States a proposed amendment originates as a special joint resolution of Congress that is not submitted to the President for his or her assent.

The manner in which constitutional amendments are finally recorded takes two main forms. In most jurisdictions, amendments to a constitution take the form of revisions to the previous text.[citation needed] Thus, once an amendment has become law, portions of the original text may be deleted or new articles may be inserted among existing ones. The second, less common method, is for amendments to be appended to the end of the main text in the form of special articles of amendment, leaving the body of the original text intact. Although the wording of the original text is not altered, the doctrine of implied repeal applies. In other words, in the event of conflict, an article of amendment will usually take precedence over the provisions of the original text, or of an earlier amendment. Nonetheless, there may still be ambiguity whether an amendment is intended to supersede or to supplement an existing article in the text.

An article of amendment may, however, explicitly express itself as having the effect of repealing a specific existing article.[1] The use of appended articles of amendment is most famous as a feature of the United States Constitution, but it is also the method of amendment in a number of other jurisdictions, such as Venezuela.

Under the 1919 German Weimar Constitution, the prevailing legal theory was that any law reaching the necessary supermajorities in both chambers of parliament was free to deviate from the terms of the constitution, without itself becoming part of the constitution. This very wide conception of “amendment” eased the rise of Adolf Hitler to power; it was consequently explicitly ruled out in the postwar 1949 constitution, which allows amendments only by explicitly changing the constitution’s text.

Methods of constitutional amendment


European Union

The Treaties of the European Union are a set of international treaties between member states that describe the constitutional basis of the European Union. Amendments must be ratified unanimously by the member states either by the national parliament or referendum.


The Constitution of Austria is unusually liberal in terms of constitutional amendments. Any piece of parliamentary legislation can be designated as “constitutional law”, i.e., as a part of the constitution if the required supermajority and other formalities for an amendment are met. An amendment may take the form of a change of the Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, the centerpiece of the constitution, a change to another constitutional act, a new constitutional act, or of a section of constitutional law in a non-constitutional act. Furthermore, international treaties can be enacted as constitutional law, as happened in the case of the European Convention of Human Rights. Over the decades, frequent amendments and, in some cases, the intention to immunize pieces of legislation from judicial review, have led to much “constitutional garbage” consisting of hundreds of constitutional provisions spread all over the legal system. This has led to calls for reform.[citation needed]

A majority of two-thirds in the National Council (parliament). Only in the case of a fundamental change (Gesamtänderung) of the constitution a confirmation by referendum is required. Since 1945, this has only happened once when Austria’s accession to the European Union was approved by popular vote.

If a constitutional amendment limits the powers of the states, a two-thirds majority in the Federal Council of Austria is required as well. Depending on the matter on hand, two-thirds of the Federal Councilors present (attendance of one-half of all Councilors is required), or two-thirds of all Federal Councilors must approve. If the amendment would change articles 34 or 35, the majority of councilors of at least four of the nine states is an additional requirement.



The Constitution of Belgium can be amended by the federal legislative power, which consists of the King (in practice, the Federal Government) and the Federal Parliament. In order to amend the Constitution, the federal legislative power must declare the reasons to revise the Constitution in accordance with Article 195. This is done by means of two so-called Declarations of Revision of the Constitution, one adopted by the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate, and one signed by the King and the Federal Government.

Following this declaration, the Federal Parliament is automatically dissolved and a new federal election must take place. This makes it impossible to amend the Constitution unless an election has intervened. Following the election, the new Federal Parliament can amend those articles that have been declared revisable. Neither Chamber can consider amendments to the Constitution unless at least two-thirds of its members are present and the Constitution can only be amended if at least two-thirds of the votes cast are in favour of the amendment.


Under the current Constitution of Bulgaria (1991), there are two procedures for amendment, depending on the part of the constitution to be amended:[2]

  • Normal amendment procedure (Articles 153–156): the Parliament can amend the Constitution for minor issues with a two-thirds majority. This shall be done in three successive readings.
  • Special amendment procedure (Articles 157–163): this procedure is the only way to revise the international borders of Bulgaria; change the form of government in the country; change the form in which the Constitution and international treaties are applied in Bulgaria (Article 5) or suspend citizens’ rights. When such amendment is needed, the Constitution envisages an election for Great National Assembly, which consists of 400 deputies, with 200 elected by proportional vote and 200 elected by the first-past-the-post method. Then the amendments to the Constitution are passed by two-thirds majority in three successive readings.

This procedure is viewed by some critics as too slow and ineffective.[3] There are voices in Bulgaria to remove the institution of Great National Assembly, which they view as an anachronism and to adopt a new procedure of constitutional amendment through popular vote.

Czech Republic

Passage of a constitutional act in the Czech Republic can only be accomplished through the agreement of three-fifths of all Deputies and Senators present at the time the proposed act is laid before each house of Parliament.[4] It is the only type of legislation that does not require the signature of the President to become law.[5] Furthermore, it is the only type of legislation the President cannot veto.[6]


The Constitution of Denmark provides an example of multiple special procedures that must be followed. After an amendment has been approved by parliament, a general election must be held; the new parliament must then approve the amendment again before it is finally submitted to a referendum. There is also a requirement that at least 40% of eligible voters must vote at the referendum in order for an amendment to be validly passed.


The Constitution of Estonia can only be modified by three-fifths majority in two successive complements of Parliament, and a referendum for certain chapters.[7]


The Constitution of Italy can be modified by the Parliament: a constitutional bill, approved by the simple majority of both the Houses, has to be newly approved by them at least 3 months later. If two thirds of the deputies and two thirds of senators vote in favor, the bill comes in effect. If the bill is approved only by the majority of the members of the Houses, a referendum can take place, if 500,000 people, or one fifth of the members of a House, or 5 out of 20 regional legislatures require it in the three months after the approval. However, the proposal becomes law after the second approval. If it is rejected in the referendum, it is repealed. Each regional legislature or 50,000 people can propose bills to Parliament.

Constitutional bill is required to amend the national Constitution, to amend the Constitutions of autonomous regions (Sardinia, Sicily, Aosta Valley/Vallée d’Aoste, Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol and Friuli-Venezia Giulia), to put into effect some provisions of the Constitution (e.g. the functioning of the Constitutional Court) and to pass a law that will be considered as a part of Constitution.

A similar procedure is required to amend regional Constitutions of non-autonomous regions. In place of national Parliament approvals and referendums, regional legislatures approvals and regional referendums are required. Regional Constitution can not contrast with national Constitution, while Constitutions of autonomous regions are considered as a part of it.

Each constitutional bill approved by Italian Parliament, has met the two third majority, except in 2001 and 2006, when referendums took place. The constitutional bill approved in 2001, that has increased the powers of the Regions, was the only one that has been approved by a referendum in Italy.


United States

Federal constitution

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the federal Constitution may be altered. Twenty-seven amendments have been added (appended as codicils) to the Constitution.

Amendment proposals may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:


All thirty-three amendment proposals that have been sent to the states for ratification since the establishment of the Constitution have come into being via the Congress. State legislatures have however, at various times, used their power to apply for a national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing a desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of U.S. Senators.

To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national Constitutional Convention, must be ratified by either:

  • The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states;


Congress has specified the state legislature ratification method for all but one amendment. The ratifying convention method was used for the Twenty-first Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1933.

Since the turn of the 20th century, amendment proposals sent to the states for ratification have generally contained a seven year ratification deadline, either in the body of the amendment or in the resolving clause of the joint resolution proposing it. The Constitution does not expressly provide for a deadline on the state legislatures’ or state ratifying conventions’ consideration of proposed amendments. In Dillon v. Gloss (1921), the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress—if it so desires—could provide a deadline for ratification. An amendment with an attached deadline that is not ratified by the required number of states within the set time period is considered inoperative and rendered moot.

An amendment becomes operative as soon as it reaches the three-fourths of the states threshold. Then, once certified by the Archivist of the United States, it officially takes its place as an article of the Constitution.

State constitutions

State constitutions in the U.S. are amended on a regular basis.[8] In 19 states, the state constitutions have been amended at least 100 times.[8]

Amendments are often necessary because of the length of state constitutions, which are, on average, three times longer than the federal constitution, and because state constitutions contain extensive detail as a reflection of the loss of public confidence in state legislatures.[8]

In addition, state constitutions are often easier to amend than the federal constitution, in part because of popular concern about corruption and mismanagement in state government.[8]

Individual states differ in the difficulty of constitutional amendments.[9] Some states allow for initiating the amendment process through action of the state legislature or by popular initiative.[9]

Political scientists find that the key factor in the rate at which constitutional amendments are made, and at which the constitution stands before it is significantly revised, is the length of the document.[9] When an attempt is made to settle difficult political matters by placing them into a state constitution, this may lead to many battles and attempts to amended.[9]


There are three methods for proposing an amendment to the California State Constitution: by the Legislature, by constitutional convention, or by voter initiative. A proposed amendment must be approved by a majority of voters.

With the legislative method, a proposed amendment must be approved by an absolute supermajority of two-thirds of the membership of each house.

With the convention method, the legislature may, by a two-thirds absolute supermajority, submit to the voters at a general election the question whether to call a convention to revise the Constitution. If the majority of the voters vote yes on that question, within six months the Legislature shall provide for the convention. Delegates to a constitutional convention shall be voters elected from districts as nearly equal in population as may be practicable. The constitution does not provide many rules for the operation of the constitutional convention.

With the initiative method, an amendment is proposed by a petition signed by voters equal in number to 8% of the votes for all candidates for governor at the last gubernatorial election. The proposed amendment is then submitted to the voters at a general or special election.

New York

There are two methods of proposing amendments to the New York Constitution. All proposed amendments must be approved by a majority of voters in a referendum.

With the legislative method, an amendment proposal must published for three months, then approved by an absolute majority of the members of each of the two houses, and approved again in a succeeding term of the houses, with an election intervening. Finally, the amendment proposal must be submitted to the people, and for ratification must be approved by a simple majority.

With the convention method, a constitutional convention must be convened by a majority vote of voters in a general election (referendum) on the question.


There are two methods for proposing amendments to the Tennessee State Constitution: through the legislature and by constitutional convention. Proposed amendments must be approved by a majority of voters in a referendum.

With the legislative method, the Tennessee General Assembly passes a resolution calling for an amendment and stating its wording. This must pass in three separate readings on three separate days, with an absolute majority on all readings. It does not require the governor‘s approval. It must then be published at least six months before the next legislative election in newspapers of wide and general circulation. (This is done by precedent but is not required by law.) After the election, the proposed amendment must go through the same procedure (absolute majority on three separate readings). Then it is put on the ballot as a referendum in the next gubernatorial election. To be ratified it must again achieve an absolute majority of those voting in the gubernatorial election.

With the convention method, the legislature can put on any ballot the question of whether to call a constitutional convention. It must be stated whether the convention is limited or unlimited—that is, whether it can only amend the current constitution or totally abolish it and write a new one. If limited, the call must state which provisions of the current constitution are to be subject to amendment, and the subsequent convention, if approved, is limited to considering only amendments to the provisions specified in the call. The proposed amendments must then be submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority of those voting in the election. A constitutional convention cannot be held more frequently than once every six years.


The only method for proposing an amendment to the Texas State Constitution is through the legislature, either in regular or special session. The governor may call a special session, and specify the agenda for the session. To become part of the constitution, proposed amendments must be approved by a majority of voters in a referendum. Texas has had six different constitutions and the current constitution, adopted in 1876, has been amended 474 times.

A proposed amendment must be approved by an absolute supermajority of two-thirds of the elected membership of each house of the legislature. It is submitted to the voters in an election specified by the legislature. The wording of an explanatory statement that will appear on the ballot must be approved by the attorney general and printed in newspapers. The full text of the amendment must be posted by all county clerks for 30 days before the election.


The only method for proposing an amendment to the Washington State Constitution is through the legislature and can originate in either branch. The proposal must be approved by a two-third majority of the legislature. The proposed amendment is placed on the ballot at the next general election, and must be approved by a majority of the electors.


South Africa

The Constitution of South Africa can be amended by an Act of Parliament, but special procedures and requirements apply to the passage of constitutional amendments. A bill amending the Constitution must be introduced in the National Assembly, and cannot contain any provisions other than constitutional amendments and directly related matters.[10]

At least 30 days before a constitutional amendment bill is introduced in the National Assembly, the person or committee introducing the amendment must publish it for public comment, submit it to the provincial legislatures, and, if it does not have to be passed by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP), submit it to the NCOP for debate. When the bill is introduced, the comments received must be tabled in the National Assembly, and in the NCOP when appropriate.[10]

All amendments must be passed by an absolute two-thirds supermajority in the National Assembly (the lower house); as the Assembly has 400 members this requires 267 members to vote for the amendment. Most amendments do not have to be considered by the NCOP (the upper house). Amendments of the Bill of Rights, and amendments affecting the role of the NCOP, the “boundaries, powers, functions or institutions” of the provinces or provisions “dealing specifically with provincial matters” must also be passed by the NCOP with a supermajority of at least six of the nine provinces. If an amendment affects a specific province, it must also be approved by the legislature of the province concerned. Section 1, which defines South Africa as “one, sovereign, democratic state” and lists its founding values, is a specially entrenched clause and can only be amended by a three-quarters supermajority in the National Assembly and six of the provinces in the NCOP.[10]

Once an Act is passed by the National Assembly, and by the NCOP if necessary, it must be signed and assented to by the President. As with any other Act of Parliament, by default an amendment comes into effect when it is published in the Government Gazette, but the text of the amendment may specify some other date of commencement, or allow the President to specify one by notice in the Gazette.[11]


Inadmissible amendments

Some constitutions use entrenched clauses to restrict the kind of amendment to which they may be subject. This is usually to protect characteristics of the state considered sacrosanct, such as the democratic form of government or the protection of human rights. Amendments are often totally forbidden during a state of emergency or martial law.

  • Under Article 79 (3) of the German Basic Law, modification of the federal nature of the country or abolition or alteration of Article 1 (human dignity, human rights, immediate applicability of fundamental rights as law) or Article 20 (democracy, republicanism, rule of law, social nature of the state) is forbidden. This is supposed to prevent a recurrence of events like those during the Nazi Gleichschaltung, when Hitler used formally legal constitutional law to de facto abolish the constitution.
  • The final article of the Constitution of Italy (Article 139, Section 2, Title 6 of Part 2) holds the “form of Republic” above amendment.
  • Article 4 of Part 1 of the Constitution of Turkey states that the “provision of Article 1 of the Constitution establishing the form of the state as a Republic, the provisions in Article 2 on the characteristics of the Republic, and the provision of Article 3 shall not be amended, nor shall their amendment be proposed”.
  • Article Five of the United States Constitution, ratified in 1788, prohibited any amendments before 1808 which would affect the foreign slave trade, the tax on the slave trade, or the direct taxation provisions of the constitution. The foreign slave trade was outlawed by an act of Congress rather than by a constitutional amendment shortly after that clause expired in 1808. Also, no amendment may affect the equal representation of states in the Senate without their own consent. If the Corwin amendment had passed, any future amendment to the Constitution “interfering with the domestic institutions of the state” (i.e., slavery) would have been banned.
  • Chapter 6, Article 120, section c of the Constitution of Bahrain prohibits “an amendment to Article 2 [State Religion, Shari'a, Official Language] of this Constitution, and it is not permissible under any circumstances to propose the amendment of the constitutional monarchy and the principle of inherited rule in Bahrain, as well as the bicameral system and the principles of freedom and equality established in this Constitution”.
  • Article 112 of the Constitution of Norway provides that amendments must not “contradict the principles embodied in this Constitution, but solely relate to modifications of particular provisions which do not alter the spirit of the Constitution”.
  • Section 284 of Article 18 of the Alabama State Constitution states that legislative representation is based on population, and any amendments are precluded from changing that.
  • Part 4, Section, Article 288 of the Constitution of Portugal contains a list of 15 items that amendments “must respect”; Article 288 itself can, however, be amended.
  • The Supreme Court of India in the Kesavananda Bharati case held that no constitutional amendment can destroy the basic structure of the Constitution of India.
  • Article 60 of the current 1988 Constitution of Brazil forbids amendments that intend to abolish individual rights or to alter the fundamental framework of the State—the Separation of Powers and the Federal Republic.
  • Article 152 of the Constitution of Romania on the “limits of revision” prohibits amendments regarding the independence and territorial integrity of Romania, the independence of justice, the republican form of government, political pluralism, and the official language. It also forbids amendments, which restrict civil rights and liberties.[12]


Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.



If Tabacco is talking about a subject that nobody else is discussing, it means that subject is more, not less important, and the Powers-That-Be are deliberately avoiding that Issue. To presume otherwise completely defeats my purpose in blogging.



Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!


In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.

T.A.B.A.C.C.O.  (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People


To Read Comments On This Post, Go To:


To Go To The Tabacco Main Page

Listing All Posts, Go To:


To Read Posts On My Wyandanch Blog, Go To

Wyandanch Main Page:

Subdomain re Exploited Minority Long Island community








Anyone may Comment here, but if you want your Comment published, you must obey the TABACCO RULES as stipulated in:


TABACCO’S RULES OF ENGAGEMENT! Most Comments Here Don’t Get Published. This Post Is Not Aimed At Those Charlatans; It is Intended To Edify My Veto Stance To The Intellectually Honest Readers Among You.


Because of Spam, Capitalists attempting to gain Free Advertising on my Blogs and other irrelevancies, Tabacco no longer reads Comments on Posts.


Relevant Post or Post URL must appear as e-mail SUBJECT!


To register a Comment, e-mail Tabacco at:






This entry was posted in Bush, class war, compromise, Democrats, deregulation, disaster capitalism, GOP, hypocrisy, illicit drugs, knowledge is power, Obama, outsourcing, political ping pong, Politics, Republicans, socialism4richcapitalism4poor, sophistry, takebackamerica, warpeace and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>