I personally believe that this is not a good amendment for several reasons:

1. The law mention was either badly written or it was intentional that the law could be repealed this way, with a lower majority - in either case, protecting that law would be the wrong thing to do.

2. Some laws may specify supermajorities for specific actions, not because it is intended that the law and these actions be constitutional but to establish that there is a broad consensus for these actions. That does not mean that there is an intention to keep the law itself from being repealed/amended without such a majority.

3. The current wording would likely require any law establishing an office subject to the law on recalls (as defined in the charter) to be repealed with a 60% majority because repealing the office would be tantamount to a recall, even if said office is otherwise subject to ordinary law.

4. Creating an amendment that protects bad laws, laws establishing supermajorities without protecting themselves, encourages further bad laws. That is the absolute opposite of what a good legislature should do.

I will oppose this proposal because it encourages bad laws instead of encouraging people to write good laws without such loopholes.