johnwilliamson062
Moderator
however you want to phrase it, the constitution has been left in the dust.
Constitutional Convention
- Thread starter johnwilliamson062
- Start date
I could not agree more. But, rather than make an attempt to roll out Constitution 2.0 How about fixing the real problem; A hugely oversize government, a legislative branch that has taken on it's own agenda and is no longer the voice of "We the people", and a judicial branch that thinks it's the legislature.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Mid 90's:Republicans with their "Contract with America" are swept into power after making all kinds of promises. They fail to keep pretty much all of them.
2008
emocrats swept into power on a platform of CHANGE. The dust hasn't settled yet, but Obama is losing support in polls faster than any past president, although the number were very high to begin with and still remain higher than many presidents have enjoyed. All the same, people seem to not be enjoying this "CHANGE."
What do you propose we do?
2008
emocrats swept into power on a platform of CHANGE. The dust hasn't settled yet, but Obama is losing support in polls faster than any past president, although the number were very high to begin with and still remain higher than many presidents have enjoyed. All the same, people seem to not be enjoying this "CHANGE."What do you propose we do?
Last edited:
But it's not gonna happen.
Hey Vanya,
You got that right!
Seriously, folks, a constitutional convention would only change 1 thing: at least some people who are not in elected federal positions would probably get to participate. But all the convention could do is to propose 0 - > 0 amendments to the constitution. The approval process for each amendmant offered would require that, either: 1) 3/4 of State legislators approve each amendment offered, OR 2) that states would each hold conventions to approve or not (# 2 has been used once, # 1 for all the others and also those that never got approved).
In other words, a constitutional convention is, in effect, only a different mechanism to propose amendments than is available to congress every day of every year.
It would undoubtedly be a rousing and rioting event (the convention, I mean), but with the hard core contention in our country today I think a constitutional convention would take decades (if ever) just to set the rules it would follow. So maybe that would be a good endeavor to assign to all the people who want things their way. Keep them out of everybody elses hair for a while.
Hey Vanya,
You got that right!
Seriously, folks, a constitutional convention would only change 1 thing: at least some people who are not in elected federal positions would probably get to participate. But all the convention could do is to propose 0 - > 0 amendments to the constitution. The approval process for each amendmant offered would require that, either: 1) 3/4 of State legislators approve each amendment offered, OR 2) that states would each hold conventions to approve or not (# 2 has been used once, # 1 for all the others and also those that never got approved).
In other words, a constitutional convention is, in effect, only a different mechanism to propose amendments than is available to congress every day of every year.
It would undoubtedly be a rousing and rioting event (the convention, I mean), but with the hard core contention in our country today I think a constitutional convention would take decades (if ever) just to set the rules it would follow. So maybe that would be a good endeavor to assign to all the people who want things their way. Keep them out of everybody elses hair for a while.
Beetmagnet
New member
A constitutional convention now would be the greatest disaster this country has ever faced. Their has been a strong push for several decades now to have one, but thank God it failed to come to pass. The last time a con/con was called the Articles of Confederation were cast aside and the current constitution was adopted. That was good then...but results now would be the death of this country. That second amendment that we all hold so dear would probably be scrapped...and it would be legal.
I know of nothing...NOTHING...that I can think of pertaining to government that I would oppose more fervently and more passionately than a con/con.
The late Chief Justice of the United States, Warren Burger, wrote in a private letter in 1988 also published in the same article:
" I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there
is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of
a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could
make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress
might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or
to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention
would obey. After a Convention is convened, it
will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like
its agenda.... A new Convention could plunge our Nation
into constitutional confusion and confrontation at
every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on
the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the
idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see
states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a
Convention. In these [constitutional] Bicentennial years,
we should be celebrating [the republic's] long life, not
challenging its very existence."
I know of nothing...NOTHING...that I can think of pertaining to government that I would oppose more fervently and more passionately than a con/con.
The late Chief Justice of the United States, Warren Burger, wrote in a private letter in 1988 also published in the same article:
" I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there
is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of
a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could
make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress
might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or
to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention
would obey. After a Convention is convened, it
will be too late to stop the Convention if we don't like
its agenda.... A new Convention could plunge our Nation
into constitutional confusion and confrontation at
every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on
the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the
idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see
states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a
Convention. In these [constitutional] Bicentennial years,
we should be celebrating [the republic's] long life, not
challenging its very existence."
I find it amusing, or disturbing, that whenever the issue of a constitutional convention is raised, people start getting all scared about stuff like, "we could loose the Second Amendment". It wouldn't be that easy. At the convention, amendments or even a complete rewrite are mearly PROPOSED by the delegates. The changes still must be approved by three-fourths of the state legislatures before they become the law of the land. It would only take 13 out of the 50 states to block any change. Am I to believe that we don't have at least thirteen states that would vote down a repeal of the right to keep and bear arms? On the other hand, we may have thirteen state legislatures not willing to agree that the right includes machine guns, grenades, etc. Changes would not come about easy or after much debate, which is a good thing.
Another issue that comes up a lot during these discussions is the sixteenth amendment. This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Constitution, with people giving it all kinds of authority that it doesn't have. In two cases (Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad; and Stanton v Baltic Mining) the US Supreme Court said, in very plain language, that the 16th amendment gave Congress no new taxing power. Look to some cases before 1913 to see what type of "income" taxes were upheld as constitutional and which were not. (Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust; and Flint v Stone Tracey Company). But I digress...
The Federal government was created by the Constitution which was created by the States. It is the power of the States to alter or restrain the Federal Government. A constitutional convention is a method to use when the states are in a super majority agreement. The other check on federal power is secession, but that also requires a state to give up any benefits from membership in the Union.
The one greatest benefit from a convention is the public debate it would generate. The government education system has dumbed down much of the people into believing we have a democracy and not a constitutional republic. Public interest in constitutional matters could be renewed.
For those who say the Constitution is just fine as it is; we must make the government follow it. I agree, but how do we go about doing that?
Another issue that comes up a lot during these discussions is the sixteenth amendment. This is one of the most misunderstood parts of the Constitution, with people giving it all kinds of authority that it doesn't have. In two cases (Brushaber v Union Pacific Railroad; and Stanton v Baltic Mining) the US Supreme Court said, in very plain language, that the 16th amendment gave Congress no new taxing power. Look to some cases before 1913 to see what type of "income" taxes were upheld as constitutional and which were not. (Pollock v Farmers Loan and Trust; and Flint v Stone Tracey Company). But I digress...
The Federal government was created by the Constitution which was created by the States. It is the power of the States to alter or restrain the Federal Government. A constitutional convention is a method to use when the states are in a super majority agreement. The other check on federal power is secession, but that also requires a state to give up any benefits from membership in the Union.
The one greatest benefit from a convention is the public debate it would generate. The government education system has dumbed down much of the people into believing we have a democracy and not a constitutional republic. Public interest in constitutional matters could be renewed.
For those who say the Constitution is just fine as it is; we must make the government follow it. I agree, but how do we go about doing that?
What I find amusing is that anyone would trust the same state, and federal legislatures that brought us to the brink we now face, to re-write the constitution.
Seems we just heard something else about "change" ?
Oh yes, I remember now, more than 51% of the (dare I use the word) registered voters wanted change, The result has been a less-than-optimal outcome. Sad truth is that sometimes folks vote for change for the sake of change it's self without regard for the "un-intended" consequences.
As I do not believe that either my state or federal legislators represent the public voice any longer I would certainly fear the outcome of their meddling with the law of the land.
It is "the same state, and federal legislatures" that we must trust in every day - they are the means of amending the constitution now. A constitutional convention, called by the states (legislatures), can bypass the federal legislatures, but otherwise the process is the same.
Twnety-seven amendments have been approved by the process. Two, prohabition, canceled each other out. There have been many many more "changes" to the constitution - by the Supreme Court - totally uncontrolled by anybody's elected representatives.
I voted no, but maybe it is time for some changes.
Therein lies the problem, I Don't trust them any longer. They have proven to me that they do not have the best interest of the state, or country as a whole, in mind.
Otherwise they would not have voted us into the debt we are now in. They have chosen to ignore "we the people"
While we do agree that some change is needed, I think the instrument of change is the center of debate.
You propose a scalpel, I see something more akin to a bulldozer.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Elect different people, problem solved. If you can't even elect people who are decent - you think trying to redo the fundamentals of the country is going to be better?
It's just a fantasy game as I said before.
It's just a fantasy game as I said before.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
With both parties having been swept into power in the past 15 years with an absolute dictate from the people to reform, and both having failed pretty miserably(I guess the Democrats have a little time left, but I believe earmarks are back along with many other things that were supposed to "CHANGE" that I believe almost everyone agreed needed to go).
With a con/con 3/4 do have to approve. amendments could be added restricting earmarks and with term limits that I think could pass. As others said we may see restrictions of 2A, but having it removed is unlikely. We may very well see unconstitutional restrictions anyways. At least this way they have to get the 3/4 approval instead of 1/2. If no amendment succeeds it sends a very strong message to the supreme court and such to continue interpreting it as the founders intended, which I believe they have been doing a pretty good job of recently.
As pointed out, there are two ways to trey and right this ship, one has a chance of scary consequences, one guarantees them.
This pile of debt and out of control spending is not going to go away and we can not continue with it, so something drastic has to change. I fervently believe voting a few Republicans into office is not going to solve the problem as the last Republican ran up the debt something crazy. I declare anyone who thinks the RNC is the answer a fool fit for the guillotine.
With a con/con 3/4 do have to approve. amendments could be added restricting earmarks and with term limits that I think could pass. As others said we may see restrictions of 2A, but having it removed is unlikely. We may very well see unconstitutional restrictions anyways. At least this way they have to get the 3/4 approval instead of 1/2. If no amendment succeeds it sends a very strong message to the supreme court and such to continue interpreting it as the founders intended, which I believe they have been doing a pretty good job of recently.
As pointed out, there are two ways to trey and right this ship, one has a chance of scary consequences, one guarantees them.
This pile of debt and out of control spending is not going to go away and we can not continue with it, so something drastic has to change. I fervently believe voting a few Republicans into office is not going to solve the problem as the last Republican ran up the debt something crazy. I declare anyone who thinks the RNC is the answer a fool fit for the guillotine.
Evan Thomas
Inactive
Well said, Glenn.
I guess what I want isn't so much to bring back "some version of the Fairness Doctrine," as to bring back some version of the media in which facts and accuracy matter more to reporters than preserving their "access" to the people in power, which means, in practice, uncritically repeating the lies they tell, and never, ever, having the temerity to point out that they are in fact lying. And it would be nice if rather more of "the people" were less happy to be lied to, and had more of a grasp of things like the value of supporting an argument with actual evidence...
Which is, indirectly, why I find the idea of a second CC in the current climate so scary: there are so many fundamentally wrongheaded ideas out there at the moment that it's horrifying to think of all these deluded people trying to re-invent the government based on what they think they know...
As it exists at present (the RNC) I would have to agree. do not let my sig line fool you, I merely mean that I voted for the lesser of the two evils.
As compared to some former administrations, quite correct.
But, compared to the current administration ? It was only penny-ante.
Pretty sure that's the reason for the discussion.
That makes a bunch of us Vanya
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Both administrations spent in ways that were absolutely unsustainable to 2020. Are we really going to argue over how unsustainable? If your government can't think out 10 years it is failing.
It absolutely was not penny ante. Bush over ran the budget by about a trillion dollars a year and came in on projected surplus. Obama came into one hell of a mess and is overshooting by about 1.5. I doubt Bush would have beat him, it just would have gone different places. What is to say the next Republican group would not outspend Obama? Bush certainly made Clinton's expenditure look like a pittance.
DO you really think there has been a time in history when there weren't fringe movements and interest groups?
Nothing out there any more radical than a republic of democratic states was in 1787.
The states that have passed anything calling for a convention have narrowly tailored the changes they are asking for.
If the states limit the power of their delegations it could make the entire convention a dead meeting.
If the limits are such that no agreement can be reached, no changes would occur.
In any case it would likely end up as a complete cluster f*** and achieve nothing.
If the states limit the power of their delegations it could make the entire convention a dead meeting.
If the limits are such that no agreement can be reached, no changes would occur.
In any case it would likely end up as a complete cluster f*** and achieve nothing.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
I think there is a general consensus among the lawyerball players that a convention can not be limited in scope.
Mr. Williamson,
Is this kind of partisan politics not the crux of the problem?
Respectfully, would it not be more productive to focus on a plan for moving forward rather than genuflect ?
You have put forth the argument in favor of a constitutional convention, or some sort of reforms to stop the decline of our country. There seems to be the beginning of some discussion, can we stay with that theme so that this thread will not fade into obscurity?