State Of Your State?

[Frank Ettin]

...This was put in there so that states could have a way to combat an out of control Federal Government.

And your evidence that was the purpose is -- what exactly?

A super-majority allows something to be done, but assures that anything that is done requires a significant consensus -- more than just a majority. But it has nothing to do with the underlying purpose.

If three-fourths of the state legislatures decided that free speech was a bad idea, or that the federal government needed more taxing authority, or that guns should be outlawed entirely, or that the presidency should be hereditary, etc., any of those awful things could be accomplished by amending the Constitution. The super-fourths super-majority requirement helps assure that none of those awful things are likely to get done.

 

[speedrrracer]

We could go about "fixing" a lot of things that didn't "work" the way they "should have" that one time, only to end up breaking them far, far, far worse.

This is a perfect summary of what's been happening in most legislative bodies for the last few decades.

 

[ATN082268]

From what I understand, this would only be true if the people framing the convention decide to do it that way. NOTHING forces them to.

Delegates to such a convention will be determined by the legislatures of the states. (those people ALREADY in office, you know, the ones we distrust, and think are doing a horrible job now...)

It depends. If the distrust and disgust is mainly at the state level, then I agree that a Constitutional Convention is not the way to go. If the distrust is mainly at the Federal level, then a Consitutional Convention is the way to bypass the House of Representatives and the Senate.

AND THOSE PEOPLE STAY in office until the convention is over and its new rules ratified.

Everything is open to change, and the people deciding what to vote on, and how to vote are ONLY as responsible to the American public as their personal morals. Even the tiny threat of not re-electing them is meaningless. We would, effectively have NO CONTROL at all.

Term Limits. A double edged sword, with no guard. Main problem? Corrupt, ineffective career politicians. Secondary problem? Corrupt, ineffective term limited politicians.

As long as the problem is "meet the new boss, ..same as the old boss.." how much does it really matter if we get new faces every few years or keep the old ones?

I'd say the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution via Constitutional Convention most likely to be proposed and passed are the ones generally aimed at the Federal Government and not specific issues (gun control, death penalty, etc); ones like balanced budget, term limits, etc.

 

[JimDandy]

If three-fourths of the state legislatures decided that free speech was a bad idea, or that the federal government needed more taxing authority, or that guns should be outlawed entirely, or that the presidency should be hereditary, etc., any of those awful things could be accomplished by amending the Constitution. The super-fourths super-majority requirement helps assure that none of those awful things are likely to get done.

Which is also somewhat moot anyway. As far as I know there's nothing special stopping a simple majority from holding a Constitutional Convention, chucking the entire thing like the Founders did with the Articles of Confederation and starting over.