The chances of a constitutional amendment, let alone one dedicated to specifically limiting the powers of law enforcement, is, and I'll go on a limb and say I'm correct in this absolute statement, 0.

There is zero chance of any amount of government in these United States cooperating in any fashion large enough to change the actual Constitution. Zero.

▲

sanex a day ago | parent | next [-]

It could be done if two thirds of the states call a convention which might actually be more likely than getting Congress to agree on anything, I'm just not confident the red states would go for it.

	▲	crawfordcomeaux 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The governments established by the wealthy to protect the wealthy while maintaining the oppression that allows for their class to exist still will not end the oppression they implement out of necessity for them to exist. Electoral/constitutional politics isn't going to protect us. "International law" isn't real and neither are other laws. It's time to update threat models to include this fact. The threat-actors are definitely aware of it and using it to their advantage while relying on us to keep thinking on terms of the contrived systems they maintain.

▲

fc417fc802 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not so sure about that. A while back Virginia managed broad bipartisan support to curtail ALPR usage. Unfortunately the governor vetoed that IIRC.

Being creeped out by corporate stalkers and an invasive government seems to be something that a lot of "regular people" of all political allegiances have in common.

	▲	arcticbull 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		An amendment requires 2/3 of the house and 2/3 of the senate -- or 34 of 50 states to call for a constitutional convention (which has never been done) -- just to float an amendment. Then 3/4 of the states have to ratify it. I don't think you could get half of states to agree the sky is blue let alone 3/4. [edit] The Equal Rights Amendment has been in progress since 1972 and while they somehow managed to get 3/4 of states to agree (Virginia agreed in 2020) the 7- and later 10-year deadline built into the bill had long elapsed. And 5 states later tried to rescind their ratifications which isn't really covered in the constitution in the first place. That one says simply: > Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex. So I guess what I'm trying to say is godspeed.

▲

tdb7893 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I still think these things can be worth pushing for, it's an issue that even the older conspiracy theorists I know naturally understand. There's a persuasive use to advocating for something simple and a constitutional amendment on privacy doesn't need much explanation (unlike some laws that people propose). If it gets some support we probably won't get an amendment still but we might get some concessions (even if it's just an amendment to a budget bill, which seems to be the only thing this Congress can actually pass).

▲

monkaiju a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Currently true, but doesnt mean there "shouldnt" be one right?