1

REPUBLICAN PLANS ROUSE DEBATE ON CONSTITUTION'S ROLE Preliminary remark: it was important to note one formal characteristic of the text: almost every element of information is repeated; most of what is stated in the first half (column 1) is reformulated in the second half (column 2). This (a quite common feature in this type of article) should have helped you clarify meanings. I THE ISSUE § 1states WHAT is under review in this article: through the recurrence of terms all belonging to the category (or field) of change: amend, new idea, alter, new [social rules], transform, referring to Republican proposals for new amendments to the Constitution. Note that proposals for "new amendments” in themselves are nothing new (§ 17: "thousands of proposals . . ."), so that the question becomes: - In what sense "new"? New amendments means both "more amendments": quantitative, not relevant here, and also "different amendments": qualitative: what is at stake here, the different nature of these proposed amendments, explicitly described as departing from (§ 2) all previously adopted amendments (§§ 2 & 3 and 11 & 12). The following table presents the system constructed by the text (rather than by the "author") and clarifies the relationships between the three contrasted series of amendments: Past amendments Earlier/ post Civil-War amend20th century th th ments (18 -19 centuries) - Fundamental rights - at the margin - basic liberties - procedural (≠ substantive) (≠ Amdt 18) Present proposals (1995) CHANGE: - economic policy - social rules - behaviors (= Amdt 18)

Note that one 20th century amendment, the 18th Amendment, is described as not belonging to the series (§11: exception; §18: rare example), and is in fact equated with the new proposals (§11: a social policy); note also that this "foreign body" disappeared from the Constitution after 14 years. The table describes a polarized system: the two extreme series (1 & 3) are defined by opposite properties (are described