#light research

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CPoRY3QFKjb/

There are four methods to change the Constitution via the Amendment process.  

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” -Article V, The United States Constitution, 1787[1]

That is to say:

2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators. This process has been used for 26 successful amendments.

2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states.  This process has been used for 1 successful amendment.

2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress (House and Senate) to create a Constitutional Convention, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators.  This process has never been used.

2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress to create a Constitutional Convention, followed up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states.  This process has never been used.

Guess what‽ It's actually harder to change the US Constitution via the Constitutional Convention method.  Congress is still heavily involved in the process. 

A Constitutional Convention doesn't get to magically change the Constitution at will.  All the Constitutional Convention does is provide a forum separate from the US House and Senate to discuss a proposed Amendment, then vote to bring the proposal to individual states, with a 2/3rds super majority required to do so. The requirement for ratification of the Amendment is still the same. 3/4ths of all state legislatures or 3/4 of ratifying conventions from all states.

The Constitutional Convention is a very unstable route to take, as fundamental questions about the process are not addressed in the Constitution.[2] For example, there are no quorum rules for discussions once the convention is underway.  Also, does each state get one representative at the convention, or is representation equal to the Electoral College with voting among the representatives of a state to decide their state's vote?  Then, what happens if a state rescinds its application for the convention and the convention is no longer requested by the required 2/3rd of states?  What happens if such an application is rescinded during or after the convention takes place?  Since the convention is still organized by the US Congress, does Congress have the ability to limit the scope of the convention (i.e., "what's your hot take on this proposed amendment" as opposed to "go ahead and write a new amendment")?  Do the state applications limit the scope themselves?  If the scope is limited, could Congress or Federal Courts invalidate the convention approval if the scope is deemed to be exceeded?  Etc.

Anyway, I foresee that we'd have nothing short of a political quagmire if a Constitution Convention is ever established.  Most likely result is no changes will come of it, save for a bunch of lawsuits questioning every step along the way.  Those lawsuits may answer some questions about the process by the courts, but that would only benefit future generations in their attempts to have their own Constitutional Conventions.

Some recent news tour of our Solar System:

Mercury: Study Reveals MESSENGER Watched a Meteoroid Strike Mercury - Combing through data from NASA's MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging (MESSENGER) mission to Mercury reveals it likely watched a meteor slamming into the planet.

Venus: Life on Venus? The Picture Gets Cloudier, doubtful - After a sensational announcement about the possibility of life on Venus, new doubts arise.

Earth: Astronomers Think They've Found Another Trojan Asteroid Lurking in Earth's Orbit - A recently discovered object sharing Earth's orbital path around the Sun could actually be a trojan (shares a planet's orbit) asteroid, astronomers have found.

Mars: Mars Mission From the U.A.E. Begins Orbit of Red Planet - U.A.E.'s probe arrives to Mars soon.

Asteroid Belt: The Asteroid Belt: Wreckage of a Destroyed Planet or Something Else? - Samples of asteroids that have fallen to Earth reveals that the Asteroid Belt likely wasn't formed from planet that was smashed a part.

Ceres and other Dwarf Planets:Top 10 Giant Facts About the Dwarf Planets - "Despite being the smallest of the five dwarf planets, Ceres was the first one discovered."

Jupiter: Jupiter Is Bigger Than Some Stars, So Why Didn't We Get a Second Sun? - Jupiter and Sun have a lot in common, so how did Jupiter end up not being a planet?

Saturn: Saturn's moon Titan: Largest sea is 1,000-feet deep - "Far below the gaseous atmospheric shroud on Saturn's largest moon, Titan, lies Kraken Mare, a sea of liquid methane. Cornell University astronomers have estimated that sea to be at least 1,000-feet deep near its center -- enough room for a potential robotic submarine to explore."

Uranus: 35 Years Ago: Voyager 2 Explores Uranus - 35 years ago, Uranus was examined by Voyager's 11 instruments.

Neptune: Next-generation planetary missions could hunt for gravitational waves, say astronomers - "Spacecraft heading to Uranus and Neptune in the next decade could be used to investigate gravitational waves as they venture into the outer Solar System."

Pluto: Pluto's atmosphere gets its blue haze from icy organic compounds, study suggests - "The haze shrouding Pluto might be made up of ice crystals possessing cyanide hearts, a new study finds."

Quaoar: How 50000 Quaoar changed the way we look at our solar system - "The ball-shaped planetoid, approximately half the size of Pluto, is the largest object found in the solar system since Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto in 1930."

"FarFarOut": Astronomers Just Confirmed The Most Distant Known Object in The Solar System - "The most distant known object in the Solar System is now confirmed. FarFarOut, a large chunk of rock found in 2018 at a whopping distance of around 132 astronomical units from the Sun, has been studied and characterised, and we now know a lot more about it, and its orbit."

Select the image for attribution and licencing info.

Some missed calls in Major League Baseball will live in infamy forever.  Other missed calls are nearly forgotten.  I recently ran into a video by SB Nation where a nearly forgotten missed call is discussed.  Pivetta is the pitch and Barnes is the batter.

Instead of me retyping the discussion, just watch the video here.

It's hard to judge the accuracy of the statement about the play without seeing the play.  So, check out the play here.

After watching the replay, it's clear the Home Plate Umpire did call the runner out as a result of the fielding of the ball, and not due to any action by the runner himself.  This means the Umpire stopped play while the ball should've technically remained in play.  Does it really matter?  Though the fielding of the ball was incorrectly ruled a catch by the Home Ump, it's the pitcher who fielded the ball.  The pitcher's next action would've been to throw the runner out at First, which should've been the real end of the play.  Now, there's a slight chance the throw to First would've been screwed up, so that is why the play shouldn't have been stopped.  However, most probably the result of letting the play continue vs ending the play with a catch call wouldn't have changed the outcome of the play in this case.  The runner would still be out and the inning would still have be ended.  Now, if other base runners where present, then this missed call would've been more consequential because this bad call would've stopped base running and ended the inning.  At that point, maybe this bad call would've been more memorable.  But even in this case, it's the last out of the inning.  The batter would've still likely have been thrown out at First.  The end of the inning would've still happened right then and there.  Austin Barnes wasn't robbed a base hit by the bad call. There is one chance of Barnes getting on base in this scenario if it weren't for the bad call.  Had the Ump not ruled the catch and ended play, the pitcher may have thought he had a proper catch and failed to throw the ball to First, giving Barnes a chance to make it safely to First.  However, it can be argued that this would've been an Error by Pivette, still not a base hit for Barnes.