I think it's potentially dangerous, whether well intentioned or not. The switching of words is cosmetic.. They'd just have a big argument over the definition of "between" and interpret in the same way.
"“The president … shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, subject to this Constitution, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
I think this would make a difference except the Bill of Rights supersedes all other documents. One can't make treaties that infringe on those.
I think it's fine the way it is. We just need to hold them to it in the way the Founding Fathers intended.
Here's my take on why it's dangerous: If he tries this, and it fails miserably, he would've effectively shown every douche lead state in the union that they have overwhelming support within in one another and a chance to amend it to their liking.
Sometimes it's best strategically not to stir the pot. I don't have a problem fighting but in this case, it's "pick your battle" for me.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: