If Prohibition could be passed in the USA, anything can be passed through the Convention IMO.
A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
11–20 of 123 posts
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#12An Article V convention is in my opinion the most thoroughly boneheaded idea in American politics (which is saying a lot). There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. In particular you can’t say (afaik) “we are calling an article V convention solely on issue X.” The linked article describes this as the “runaway convention problem.” If you are on the left, imagine th…
> If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion.
> If you are on the right, imagine it specifically forbidding private gun ownership.
What if it became a 3/5s compromise sort of deal? No more fights over guns (we get to keep ‘em) and no more fights over abortion (women decide). We have that sort of today, but what if it were specifically enshrined as a formal recognition that each side got something it wanted, rather than the current state where both sides are doing something the other side wants to compel them to stop.
Or even weirder thought experiment, what if both sides did a compromise that flipped both. “We’ll turn in all our guns if you have the babies”.
I’m not advocating either position. I just find the thought experiment of a Great Compromise around two issues like this interesting to ponder through.
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#13I would not trust the present day to create a viable constitution. It would likely be dominated by whatever party is in charge to perpetuate their specific platform rather than to establish principle based rules. The original constitution is really kind of amazing at how well it’s functioned. It has flaws, obviously, but seems really effective.
On the other hand, modern countries who once used the US Constitution as a starting point for their own version no longer do, because ours is stuck two centuries back and there is no reason to believe we have the ability to change that.
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#14An Article V convention is in my opinion the most thoroughly boneheaded idea in American politics (which is saying a lot). There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. In particular you can’t say (afaik) “we are calling an article V convention solely on issue X.” The linked article describes this as the “runaway convention problem.” If you are on the left, imagine th…
> If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion. > If you are on the right, imagine it specifically forbidding private gun ownership. What if it became a 3/5s compromise sort of deal? No more fights over guns (we get to keep ‘em) and no more fights over abortion (women decide). We have that sort of today, but what if it were specifically enshrined as a formal recognition that e…
Are you by any chance seriously putting forth the 3/5s compromise as a positive outcome?
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#15An Article V convention is in my opinion the most thoroughly boneheaded idea in American politics (which is saying a lot). There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. In particular you can’t say (afaik) “we are calling an article V convention solely on issue X.” The linked article describes this as the “runaway convention problem.” If you are on the left, imagine th…
> If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion. > If you are on the right, imagine it specifically forbidding private gun ownership. What if it became a 3/5s compromise sort of deal? No more fights over guns (we get to keep ‘em) and no more fights over abortion (women decide). We have that sort of today, but what if it were specifically enshrined as a formal recognition that e…
Can you think of some reasons politicians might not like a compromise like that?
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#16I would not trust the present day to create a viable constitution. It would likely be dominated by whatever party is in charge to perpetuate their specific platform rather than to establish principle based rules. The original constitution is really kind of amazing at how well it’s functioned. It has flaws, obviously, but seems really effective.
Those flaws are pretty massive though. Legalising slavery and letting anyone and his dog own guns? That barbaric and doesn't belong in any constitution in 2021.
> Legalising slavery
The original constitution did not address slavery until the passing of the thirteenth amendment in 1865 which made it illegal except as punishment for a convicted crime.
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#17I personally think this is a great idea as a Constitutional Convention will be a free-for-all with no rules. We can then start from scratch on U.S. Constitution 2.0.
With a new codebase, we can do a total rewrite, getting rid of bad lines, and not having to have that explicit patch for slavery to be included during every recompile. We can also clean up some dumb redundant code like the 18th and 21st Amendments. Should have been done years ago.
And given we're a democracy, we should all vote yes/no for the new Constitution. I know where the majority of the people in this country stand on the issues (81 million to 74 million during the last presidential election) so I'm fine with this.
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#18An Article V convention is in my opinion the most thoroughly boneheaded idea in American politics (which is saying a lot). There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. In particular you can’t say (afaik) “we are calling an article V convention solely on issue X.” The linked article describes this as the “runaway convention problem.” If you are on the left, imagine th…
There are a lot of people who want term limits. Even for their own candidates. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. Part of the problem is they start to lose touch with their constituents. I don't know the right length 2-4 for representatives and 1-2 for senators.
I used to agree with that. The problem, I've since been convinced, is that increases the power of lobbyists. If the only people that can stick around long enough to figure out how to get anything done are the lobbyists, they're going to have an even more outsized role in what laws get passed.
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#19An Article V convention is in my opinion the most thoroughly boneheaded idea in American politics (which is saying a lot). There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. In particular you can’t say (afaik) “we are calling an article V convention solely on issue X.” The linked article describes this as the “runaway convention problem.” If you are on the left, imagine th…
If a constitutional convention actually happened it would be a mere formality. The new government would effectively have already been established by an informal process and written a new constitution. The convention would have exactly one item on its agenda: vote to accept the new constitution.
Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)
#20An Article V convention is in my opinion the most thoroughly boneheaded idea in American politics (which is saying a lot). There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. In particular you can’t say (afaik) “we are calling an article V convention solely on issue X.” The linked article describes this as the “runaway convention problem.” If you are on the left, imagine th…
I agree with you largely, at the same time this is designed to avoid a civil war. Aka if the federal government over reaches the states can reduce the central authority.
All that said, to call a convention, you’ll need a super majority of states. Theoretically, that super majority would also be the ones deciding what goes into the changes.
For one, you’d probably get that much needed clarification on the second amendment. Although, I suspect it’ll be weaker than initially intended (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today).
At the end of the day, it’s not perfect. Even what you brought up about abortion I don’t think would be considered. The “right” believes most of the regulations should be reserved to the states. I suspect instead you’d see an increased strengthening of states rights and a greater restriction on federal authority — which “helps” anti-abortion advocates but at also “helps” with California’s policies around Marxist policies.
I’d much rather see a convention of states than a civil war. I personally think we’re at the “bleeding Kansas” timeframe of the coming conflict. I see no reason we won’t have a civil war at this point, unless we have something like a convention of states.