Constitutional Convention

Would a constitutional convention be positive or negative?

  • Positive

    Votes: 13 16.7%

  • Negative

    Votes: 65 83.3%
  • Total voters
    78
J

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.
 
The true problem with our Nation at this point isn't the elected officials. Elected officials with a biased anti-constitutional agenda at this point is only a SYMPTOM of the real problem. The real problem, and the highest true power in this nation and in the world, is the media. We the people expect the media to be fair and un-biased in reporting on the deeds and misdeeds of our candidates and elected officials. If they report selectively or try to cover up information, then of course the sheeple will not have all of the information they need to make an informed decision as they vote.


With my little speech there, I think a constitutional convention would be a very bad thing right now. We the people would be at the mercy of elected officials who rode a coat-tail of populist majority voters... many of whom went to the polls to vote for one man and checked the box that voted for everyone on the same side he was on. The timing is off on a Constitutional convention. Give it a few years... there is too much power centered around one party right now and they're going to make a mess. The people will eventually get tired of it, then things will balance out, and it will likely take a constitutional convention to un-do the damage that has been and will be done under this current congress/administration.
 
No. To be blunt, the call for a convention is from fringe groups who would want to posture about their own nuttiness from the left or the right.

Talking among themselves, they think a rewrite would strengthen whatever righteous cause they think the country would support.

The 2nd could go away just as easily as be strengthened. Religious nuts would want to get rid of church/state separation. Dogs and cats could be granted the right to live together - even in same sex interspecies marriage.

My, I'm cranky. :D
 
We don't need a constitutional convention. What we need is the faithful application of the Constitution as it is. That means - Congress shall enact laws that conform to the limitations established by the Tenth Amendment. The President and offices of the Executive Branch to not exceed their authority. And the federal judiciary - specifically the Supreme Court - to apply the issues presented before it considering only the plain language of the Constitution as it was written - not how they wish it had been written.
 
We don't need a constitutional convention. What we need is the faithful application of the Constitution as it is. That means - Congress shall enact laws that conform to the limitations established by the Tenth Amendment. The President and offices of the Executive Branch to not exceed their authority. And the federal judiciary - specifically the Supreme Court - to apply the issues presented before it considering only the plain language of the Constitution as it was written - not how they wish it had been written.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth and +1 100%
 
If anyone believes the media is the highest power in the country, they've been listening to the media too much.

But be careful what you wish for. How different was life for the average person before the revolution and after the revolution? You could almost say any revolution, too. And how different was life in either Russia before the breakup of the USSR and after or in Yugoslavia before and after (in that case, once the shooting stopped)? I have to admit that I have no direct experience in any of those cases and I'm relying on the media for my information.

People will forever be arguing about what the authors of the constitution and all the laws that followed, federal, state and local, meant. And, I suppose, people will forever be arguing about changing it. Some evidently think it shouldn't be changed, by which they might mean it shouldn't have been changed. Others are quite willing to change all of it, no doubt. I suspect that if a new constitution were written, it would be ten times longer.

I don't know what the majority thinks but apparently enough people didn't like the way things were and just maybe, wanted to try something else. What a revolutionary idea! Or it it revolting?
 
If anyone believes the media is the highest power in the country, they've been listening to the media too much.
Click to expand...

So I suppose you've personally met and spoke with every single person you've voted for?
 
I said no because we're likely to end up with a worse Constitution than the one we already have. I say that because so many people don't know the three branches of government, don't understand the balance of fed/state/local powers, and expect the fedgov to solve everything. That was not true of the founders, and they came up with a pretty good Constitution. We could only do worse.
 
The devil is in the details

The problem with calling for (and getting) a new constitutional convention is that #1) EVERYTHING is open for change. Absolutely everything! Our entire system of government can be changed. They could, for example, if they had the votes, create a monarchy, (President for Life?) and it would be 100% legal! Once convened, there are no (zero, none) restrictions on what is to be changed, or how. The entire existing Constitution could be thrown out,and it would be legal for them to do so. NO arguments, NO method for redress of grievances, except for convening a second convention (assuming the results from the first one allow for it), and starting over. NOT GOOD!

and #2), it is the sitting congress (the one in office when the convention is called for) that determines the make up of the convention. How many members there are to be, and who is represented by how many of them. For example, they could decide the convention is to be 150 members, and 130 of them are to be Californians. (I know this is an extreme example, but there is nothing prohibiting such extremism, other than the personal integrity of the members of the sitting congress. and
#3) The sitting congress remains in office (and in power) until the new constitutional convention is conluded.

Considering the political and economic power of certain groups in our nation today, I find the idea of a new constitutional convention resulting in an improvement for us to be unrealistic wishful thinking.

Do you really think giving Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, etc. the legal ability to choose who will make the new rules for government (ALL of them) would be a good idea?
 
I believe the Second amendment would likely be rewritten and directly limited to personal defense
Click to expand...
I am a staunch believer in the 2nd amendment as defense against tyrannical government, not related to hunting, target shooting, etc. Of course stalking a deer and punching paper at 1000 yards are obviously indirectly related to the tyrannical government defense.

If the second amendment was rewritten to eliminate civilian weapons suitable for this defense I would seriously consider leaving the US.
I obviously don't think this act would be a surefire victory or without extreme risk.

I edited the rest of my post as the admins tend to PM me with warnings when I go into dark economic analysis mode.
 
THis posted to the wrong thread, even though I am pretty sure I posted it in the correct thread with this thread open in another tab...
Saw a similar thing in another thread earlier.
 
Last edited:
I voted negative. As csmsss wisely pointed out, The constitution, as written, is perfectly fine. It has worked for centuries, and continues to reflect the principals that make us the greatest nation on Earth. The changes need to be to the way that "We the people" hold our government accountable to us. For far too long we have taken a passive role in our stewardship of the collective power we have as citizens. Poor voter turnout, turn the other cheek each time a right is squashed, stand around and mutter amongst ourselves while the constitution is shredded a bit more. Constitutional convention? no. Activism aimed at taking the rights granted by the constitution back ? Yes.

Don't fix the law, condemn the lawless.

I cannot argue that it is time for a "convention" of sorts, more of a "revival" (only a figure of speech for the secular folks) To get us off our a$$es and put our house in order. It is not that the constitution has somehow become "outdated" or obscure.
 
Last edited:
Way back in 1975 I wrote my Master's thesis on the need for a Constitutional Convention of all 50 states and territories of the United States in order to rectify the errors of the judicial system in its interpretations of the law. My thesis was met with possibly the same level of "no way, our Constitution is just fine" as well as " it needs to be updated to what America is today" attitudes and opinions; it was an interesting discussion.

My conclusion was a Constitutional convention today is required as we have added many additional amendments since its inception and the quantity of rulings that have taken place in the 200+ years seem to contradict each other is astounding. Not that any wording of the (original) Constitution can be changed just many of these so called laws need to be stripped out and a strict adherence to the ideals of the founding fathers implemented.
 
YEs. We as a country need to come together and answer questions like "Would the founding fathers have written the second amendment as they did if they could foresee GE miniguns and nuclear weapons?"
THere are many questions like this that we go back and forth on and the constitution is generally ignored b/c so many view it as a "dead" document. I have trouble arguing that it is "living" anymore considering the resistance to a convention even when there are so many glaring contradictions between US laws and the constitution. Neither party really seems all that concerned about following the constitution. Bush had absolutely no problem ignoring amendments 1, and 4-6 when it was convenient. Obama is obviously going after two through any backdoor he can find.
Something has gone out of whack and maybe the constitution is what needs to change. Not saying I predict I would like many of the changes, but maybe that is what is necessary at this juncture. If the majority of the people in the US say, "hey, we want to throw out the 2nd amendment, whittle down 4-6, or get rid of this seperation of church and state clause", at least I know where we stand and I can go ahead and apply for Swiss citizenship:)
 
Last edited:
The problem with a rewriting of the constitution is twofold, one...those in DC dont pay attention to the one we already have, and two, most of them aren't smart enough to write a better one. Want Pelosi and Reid and Frank and Dodd throwing in a few zingers, overseen by Pres Saetoro?

It would look like the 70,000 page tax code.

Be afraid of getting what you ask for. States Rights can do the same with less damage. It will change, it has before.
 
Last edited:
Do we really want the current people running this country to have the opportunity of "updating" the Constitution?

I'm already fearing the possible of number of Supreme Court Justices that Obama will be able to appoint. Letting them get their hands on the Constitution is suicide.
 
I wish:
The income tax would be repealed and the federal government would be limited to property, tariff, and excise tax.
Anyone not paying property tax would lose the right to vote, as our forefathers originally set it up. This would in short order take care of all our other concerns.

I wish we could repeal the entire NFA system and return to the days when a person in my neighborhood could leave their doors unlocked at night and order a TSG to their door from a mail order catalog. Back when everyone had a sawed off shotgun in their closet no one broke into houses in my neighborhood.

I wish I never had to think about what might happen if I am awoken in the middle of the night by a no knock warrant at the wrong address and start shooting, or just reach for my gun, before I get past "there are guys with guns coming towards me"

NONE of those things is going to happen, so lets sit down as a country and decide what we stand for and where we are going., because right now I am pretty sure we stand for nothing and are headed towards a bad place.
 
No. In the first place, it isn't going to happen. Secondly, What Glenn said is correct: this is an idea that appeals to extremists on either side of the political spectrum, who are happy to ignore the fact that they might not get what they're wishing for.

The problem isn't with the Constitution, it's with politicians who ignore it or find ways to sneak around it, and with voters who keep electing them. If we want a goal for our activism, reforming the electoral system would be a great thing to work toward: get rid of a campaign finance system which allows the almost total control of Congress by large corporations and Wall Street, no matter which party is nominally in power; put a limit (6 weeks or a month would be plenty) on the length of political campaigns, and bring back some version of the Fairness Doctrine, preferably one which permits something more than a dichotomized view of complex issues.

Actually, I might be all for a new Constitutional Convention if I could persuade a majority of the delegates that switching to a parliamentary system would accomplish almost all of the above... :D

But it's not gonna happen.
 
and bring back some version of the Fairness Doctrine,
Click to expand...
:eek:

No thanks, I like the fact that the left has firm control over the print and network media, The right has talk radio, and a fair share of the interwebs, and I can stay in the middle and choose which dichotomy I prefer to listen to. Our 2A rights are stretched enough, (along with many others) Let's not give .gov more control of the 1st.

I have trouble arguing that it is "living" anymore considering the resistance to a convention even when there are so many glaring contradictions between US laws and the constitution.
Click to expand...

I would submit that it is not the constitution that is at odds with the law, but rather the opposite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top