Constitutional Convention

[Beetmagnet]

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."

[apr1775]

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?

[OuTcAsT]

I find it amusing, or disturbing, that whenever the issue of a constitutional convention is raised, people start getting all scared

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.

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

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.

[ftd]

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.

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.

[OuTcAsT]

It is "the same state, and federal legislatures" that we must trust in every day

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]

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.

[johnwilliamson062]

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.

[Evan Thomas]

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?

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...

[ftd]

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.

I agree with you mostly. The one that bothers me is the interstate commerce clause which the SC continues to use to allow federal meddling with powers not given it by the constitution.

[OuTcAsT]

I fervently believe voting a few Republicans into office is not going to solve the problem

I declare anyone who thinks the RNC is the answer a fool fit for the guillotine.

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.

the last Republican ran up the debt something crazy.

As compared to some former administrations, quite correct.
But, compared to the current administration ? It was only penny-ante.

And it would be nice if rather more of "the people" were less happy to be lied to

Pretty sure that's the reason for the discussion.

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...

That makes a bunch of us Vanya

[johnwilliamson062]

But, compared to the current administration ? It was only penny-ante.

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.

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...

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.

[thallub]

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.

#1
Best post that I have seen on any board this year.

[brickeyee]

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.

[johnwilliamson062]

I think there is a general consensus among the lawyerball players that a convention can not be limited in scope.

[OuTcAsT]

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?

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?

[johnwilliamson062]

One of these days the Chinese will say no more. If we stay the course between now and then people who have lived off of welfare will suddenly find themselves holding checks that banks will not cash. They will be upset. THey also will have extremely limited options as they have NEVER provided for themselves. In fact many come from third generation welfare families who's only skill handed from generation to generation is playing the system. THey have no education, no work ethic, and no job skills.

What can we do between today and the day the Chinese cut off our source of borrowing to prepare for that day? If a con con is too dangerous, what options do we have?

I have some connection to both my Rep and Senator(and at least one of Voinovich's likely replacements). I can push a little and I think they will at least listen to what I say and consider it, even if they do not follow my advice in the end.

As it stands I see this country falling in upon itself in about 5 years(25 trillion debt, 35+% of budget services debt), ten at most(45+ trillion debt, 50+% budget services debt), and within a year would not surprise me(15 trillion debt, 20+% budget services debt). Russia went from a legitimate threat to ruins in less than one year. At the point at which world powers start talking about changing their foreign currency reserves from the hegemonies currency, it usually does not take long. There are some strong rumblings to this effectaround the world.

At that point, as a 25-35 year old male I will be holding a rifle whether I want to or not(in this situation everyone my age holds a rifle or gets a bullet in the head historically). What can be done to avoid that outcome?

Con Con is all I see. What other options are there(besides just letting the debt pile up and bankrupt the country).

Maybe the EU will bail us out in thanks for the Marshall plan...

[OuTcAsT]

The thing I find interesting in this thread thus far are the numbers, as of this writing 34 negative, 5 positive, and 415 views. Leaving out the folks who came back to post that means that (loosely) around 9% voted.

This seems to be a recurring theme in this country, 10% of the people haul most of the load, the rest just coast along.

Until we somehow increase the number of people who actively get involved in a push for change it will be an almost impossible task.

I think the impetus is there, as evidenced by our last election, it just needs the proper compass.

[alloy]

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.
Con Con is all I see. What other options are there(besides just letting the debt pile up and bankrupt the country).

Oppressive times no doubt, comrade. But i have faith in the military and i support them when i can, i plan for the next election, and this time, aside from voting...i have volunteered to assist. Voice your opinion and don't let people think you are down with the status quo. Call for a convention, i don't think it will happen(and don't want it to happen) but the call sends a message nontheless. Term limits, campaign finance, gun rights... whatever floats your boat, pick one and work it. The Virginia gubbernatorial race is in my mind.

Overall, I predict a landslide for the far right, and will be working to those ends, because it makes me feel better to be involved, than not.. I'm hopeing for another Reagan and the optimism that got us back to work...what we do best(aside from what some people think). Get out of my way, and let me make my bux.

So i guess all i got is...don't get overwhelmed by it, obviously common sense is kaput for the time being. Those who remember Viet nam/Watergate and then the Carter era know we have seen rough patches before. I'm sure those older than me, have even more tough times to recall.

[gc70]

No.

The last constitutional convention started with a commission to resolve a navigation dispute between a couple of states and ended with the proposal of our current Constitution. Changes to the Articles of Confederation required the unanimous consent of the states, but the proposal for our current Constitution only required a 75% majority for adoption.

Once convened, a constitutional convention can propose ANYTHING.

BTW, the Articles of Confederation contained term limits (3 years out of 6 for legislators and 1 year out of 3 for the President) that were neatly disposed of in the current Constitution.

[5whiskey]

Really, there are only two things I would like added to the constitution. One would be an amendment for a balanced budget unless 2/3rds of the states and 2/3rds of both houses call for an emergency deficit. The other would be term limits.

Since we ALL know that'll never in a million years happen, we need the constitution interpreted in a manner that keeps in mind what the framers intended. It doesn't matter that nuclear weapons and GE miniguns exist today.

If the government overstepped it's bounds enough that a majority portion of America was prepared to challenge it by force, the military could do virtually nothing about facing 150+ million people who are reasonably armed. We don't need GE miniguns to challenge the government, but by God we should have the right to carry the same foundational tool our troops carry, the assault rifle. The people of Iraq have given us a darn fit with cell phones, 155 shells, and a few AKs. You also have to remember that if it got to that point, I dare say we'd be amazed at the military units that would be on our side.

[Flapjack23]

I believe our constitution, as amended, is just fine. the problem is our politicians who disregard it for partisan political gain. This includes both sides of the isle. A con. conv. would encourage all the extremists on both sides to make a bunch of noise about what "we" need to make this country great. Some of those extreme opinions are on this thread. On July 12, 1974 I won the lottery. I was born a US citizen. This is and will continue to be the greatest country to live and work in. If there is the need, the constitution can be amended. We do not need a "re-do". The constitution is fine, we need to elect politicians who will honor it.

[YodaMage]

This is an interesting read.

There is an overtone to it that in a democratic state, the people and their opinions should not be allowed to override/modify a written document, one that mapped out and set down the majority of people's opinions 200+ years ago.


When did the constitution become a bible, written by an entity greater then men that were flesh and blood...


I tend to believe in democracy. Put measures to vote, institute policy. Simply put, put amendment questions in the referendum loop every four years and let the people speak. 75% is good enough for me.

[Al Norris]

The problem, YodaMage, is that this is not a democracy, nor was it ever intended to be.

Yes we have some democratic mechanisms in place. But a real democracy is a very scary thing.

That document, you sneered at, is what gives everyone the same rights and freedoms (even if it took awhile to do) as everyone else. In a democracy, the majority can simply vote your rights away.

They don't teach this stuff, anymore. Mores the pity.

[madmo44mag]

The constitution is fine as it stands now.
We need law makers and politicians to acknowledge we have a constitution and abide by it's laws, privileges and principles.
The Fed has run wild and rode rough shod over the individual states so long they forgot who they work for and what principles guide and govern our society.

Just a note here. I see some people want to turn the USA into a socialistic European type state.
If that's what you want, take a hike.
You don't fix something that ain't broke.

[BlueTrain]

A democracy is a where you can vote to have a man put to death.