I think it is considered treason to advocate doing away with the Constitution, correct?
Would it be treasonous, though, to advocate adding an amendment to the constitution which unequivocally radically alters, or even effectively deletes, large portions of that constitution?
Like one which says, in the most extreme case, “everything written prior to this amendment in the constitution shall be considered stricken from the constitution”?
Know what I’m asking?
-FrL-
No. The First Amendment protects speech, including most importantly controversial political speech, so long as it is not an incitement to immediate violence. Soberly advocating for any political outcome, including the 86’ing of the Constitution, is well within the protection of the Amendment.
–Cliffy
Incorrect.
After a cursory reading of the Constitution (I am not a Constitutional scholar), I am led to believe that there is no part of the Constitution that is not amendable. As such, you could pass an amendment stating that the entire Constitution is null and void (provided, of course, that the amendment were properly passed).
Zev Steinhardt
To answer what I think you’re saying… no, there is no limit to what the constitution can say or how it can be amended. In the end it is what the majority decides it is-- nothing more and nothing less. What legal authority do you think exists above the Constitution? There isn’t any. The Supreme Court can’t declare an amendment unconstitutional if it is enacted per the requirements of the constitution. The only limit is what the people will put up with before they revolt.
There are a couple of provisions in Article V itself (the amendment procedure) which on the face of them render certain portions of the Constitution un-amendable. One of those is now long moot (no amendments banning the African slave trade before 1808); the other forbids the “One Senator for Each Dakota” Amendment. IIRC, we’ve had discussions before about whether or not the “One Senator for Each Dakota” Amendment couldn’t just include a clause modifying Article V as well. Or perhaps you could have Amendment XXVIII (modifying Article V), immediately followed by Amendment XXIX (the “One Senator for Each Dakota” Amendment itself). Or, an amendment just chucking the whole Senate might not even have any problem with that provision. (If no state has representation in the Senate, they’re all equally represented, right?) Also, who exactly would proclaim part of the constitution itself unconstitutional?
Article V also provides for a mechanism by which the state legislatures could call for what would amount to a new Constitutional Convention. Such a body could probably can the whole thing, declare George Washington and company disgraced traitors, and send a formal letter of apology to Her Majesty humbly asking if she’ll have us back. Any changes made by the convention would then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, the same as Congressionally proposed amendments.
Interesting.
For some reason I had thought that while expressing the opinion that the constitution is bad would be okay, actually working to get it overthrown, by any means even non-violent ones, was somehow not legally kosher.
Silly me, I guess.
All right… looks like I’ve got work to do. 
-FrL-
There are laws against advocating the overthrow of the government by force or violence.
Actually, the only limit is that no state can be deprived of its equal representation without its consent. Which means that the Senate could be abolished or reapportioned – but only if all the state legislatures, not just a 3/4 majority, approved, and if purple monkeys flew out of my butt.
I’ve sometimes wondered just how strictly that clause would be construed. If there were an amendment that, for instance, doubled federal taxes on every resident of a state that refused to consent to losing its representation in the Senate, would that violate the limit in some way? Would an ordinary law that established that kind of penalty be constitutional?
A Constitutional Amendment can modify, or rescind any portion of the Constitution, or all of it. It requires only the normal process for amendment, and does not have to invoke a new Constitutional Convention.
If the entire Constitution were rescinded, the entire United States Government would cease to exist as a legally authorized body. The states would become independent nations, no longer required to acknowledge each other’s laws, unless agreed among them by treaty. If some or all of the states agreed to adopt a new Constitution, they could do so, but they would not be required to do so. World courts might have something to say about the legal responsibility of the several states to honor the rather substantial outstanding debt of the United States, but that would be entirely the responsibility of the State governments, if at all.
The instant of ratification by the requisite majority of the states would dissolve the nation. The desire of the remaining non-ratifying states would not, by itself bind them into a nation, unless they chose to ratify the existing Constitution for themselves. Of course we could re fight the Civil War to compel the states to remain in the Union. War tends to take precedence over law.
Washington DC would become an independent Nation, I suppose, and could declare Marion Barry to be Emperor, by acclamation. The Capitol Building could be opened as a casino, and the White House as a bed and breakfast. The various Embassies would have no legal standing, since their Ambassadors would have no diplomatic credentials, or official status, until His Highness decided if he wanted diplomatic ties with the rest of the world.
The various official persons of the three branches of government, the lobbyist community, and the great hordes of gummint workers would become refugees, and the last rush hour of all would take place, as everyone left Washington for the very last time.
Tris