johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I reread chapter six of Marie Lavigne's Economics of Transition this afternoon. Although not too detailed it gives a good economic summary of the events inside ComEcon which preceded the 1990 meltdown. One of the major things was attempts at stimulus spending to jar the economy and get things rolling again so the USSR would not be underwriting all the other members while itself falling ever deeper into debt. Sound familiar?
This lead me back to a my standing conviction that this country needs substantial change immediately in order ward off long term dire consequences. The only real way to do this(peaceably), is for the states to call a constitutional convention. I do not think DC is going to take advantage of their ability to do so.
Would a constitutional convention be good or bad?
It would update the constitution to reflect the present values of our society. Would that be good or bad? I have to say I believe the Second amendment would likely be rewritten and directly limited to personal defense. I think there would likely be adjustments to the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments also. Most people would not even think there was a purpose to the third.
On the plus side, the first amendment would possibly be strengthened. The ninth and tenth might be strengthened/clarified(incorporation of other amendments). Seventh probably needs a face lift considering how out of control some jury settlements have been. Term limits could be brought into it.
Of course there is always the chance that such a convention could play a role in sparking a full scale revolution, as seen in France.
This lead me back to a my standing conviction that this country needs substantial change immediately in order ward off long term dire consequences. The only real way to do this(peaceably), is for the states to call a constitutional convention. I do not think DC is going to take advantage of their ability to do so.
Would a constitutional convention be good or bad?
It would update the constitution to reflect the present values of our society. Would that be good or bad? I have to say I believe the Second amendment would likely be rewritten and directly limited to personal defense. I think there would likely be adjustments to the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments also. Most people would not even think there was a purpose to the third.
On the plus side, the first amendment would possibly be strengthened. The ninth and tenth might be strengthened/clarified(incorporation of other amendments). Seventh probably needs a face lift considering how out of control some jury settlements have been. Term limits could be brought into it.
Of course there is always the chance that such a convention could play a role in sparking a full scale revolution, as seen in France.