Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

coloradofiscal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 123 posts

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#41

Post by [deleted] »

joe_the_user wrote: post #25
chrismcb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. That illustrates how ridiculous ideas get traction. Term limits are inherently anti-democratic. They don't end entrenched power but move it to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. The framers of the Constitu…

[deleted]

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#42

Post by no_wizard »

lettergram wrote: post #32
brightball wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultimately, the only compromise that will ever work is a 10th Amendment style compromise where the decision is on a state by state basis. At that moment, people will get a lot more involved in local politics because national politics won’t matter all that much beyond national defense.

Which was kind of how the US was supposed to be designed. It’s exactly what the “right” wants as well, so it might indeed happen.

If the “right” actually wanted this they wouldn’t fight against it when it didn’t benefit them, like cutting the defense budget. They routinely vote against slashing funding of arguably the largest government entity we have (department of defense). They also have no trouble with broadly trying to pass laws that regulate their version of social norms

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#43

Post by lettergram »

tptacek wrote: post #36
lettergram wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which was kind of how the US was supposed to be designed. It’s exactly what the “right” wants as well, so it might indeed happen.

It is not exactly what the "right" wants. Conservatives favor local control for some issues, but emphatically not for others.

Conservatives are a only a segment of the right. I’d argue republicans are a mix of libertarians, conservatives and moderates.

I think the only thing linking them together are the “leave me alone” argument. That’s why I’m not concerned about women’s choice on abortion in a convention of states.

I can only think of a few federal things they all want: secure border, gun rights, freedom of speech, states rights, etc.

Idk if you can even all get them to “end the fed” lol

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#44

Post by no_wizard »

ABeeSea wrote: post #31

I’m very worried about the US turning into a one-party theocracy. The actual institutional norms have been violated and the path has been laid. A very large portion of the country supports an authoritarian Christian theocracy as the future of America and it is terrifying. They are concentrated in smaller states that give these extreme voices outsized power in our current constitutional structure. I worry for the futu…

What objective evidence is this based on exactly?

Most Americans are less religious[0][1] now then they ever were. Barring an unforeseen event, I don’t see how this idea holds water

[0]: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christ...

[1]: that’s Pew as in the research foundation not the church variety

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#45

Post by kadoban »

tadfisher wrote: post #30
kadoban wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you by any chance seriously putting forth the 3/5s compromise as a positive outcome?

In a sense, it is, because otherwise the original Constitution may not have been ratified and a possible outcome would be the Balkanization of North America. In another, it justified and enshrined in foundational law the abhorrent practice of chattel slavery, and allowed the United States to form a strong centralized government capable of colonizing and subjugating the native people who were living there for thousand…

It's just a bizarre example of a compromise if you're looking for a positive example.

At _very best_ it was a necessary evil, with a large emphasis on the "evil".

There's a direct line from there to more slavery, the Civil War, a couple of centuries of mistreatment of a large portion of the American citizenry, internal strife, and the current clusterfuck of race relations and politics in America.

Put against that there's the other option of "maybe there might have been one extra country".

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#46

Post by bcwarner »

The runaway convention is a real problem, but what would be odds of each outcome? I can't imagine the Constitution would be replaced in its entirety, that would be difficult to implement. I also can't imagine contentious issues going strongly either way, that would probably also be difficult to pull off politically.

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#47

Post by ianai »

A constitutional convention right now would only serve the interests of hostile foreign powers. At best the US would be twiddling its thumbs while the world moves onward from it. The US would become something like a geographic average between a third world country and a first world country. At worst, the US looks weak enough for a hostile power to actually, successfully invade and occupy.

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#48

Post by ulkesh »

lettergram wrote: post #20
huitzitziltzin wrote: post #5

An 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 amend…

> (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today)

Citation? As it originally reads, the purpose as written is for the people to keep and bear arms for use within a well-regulated militia. The supreme court has ruled (almost 100 years later) that it does mean people can own guns, generally for the purpose of state defense [1]. This is the first I've heard of a regular citizen having the right to parade around in their own battleships.

[1] - https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#49

Post by throw0101a »

joe_the_user wrote: post #25
chrismcb wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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. That illustrates how ridiculous ideas get traction. Term limits are inherently anti-democratic. They don't end entrenched power but move it to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. The framers of the Constitu…

An article that puts forward points why term limits are bad:

* https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reason...

Also:

> The democratic peace – the regularity that democracies do not go to war with each other – is one of the most robust findings in political science. This column presents recent research showing that democratic leaders unable to seek another term in office behave like autocrats. Accountability to voters in the next election lies at the heart of the democratic peace.

* https://voxeu.org/article/democracy-and-accountability-perve...

Re: A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

#50

Post by panarky »

lettergram wrote: post #43
tptacek wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not exactly what the "right" wants. Conservatives favor local control for some issues, but emphatically not for others.

Conservatives are a only a segment of the right. I’d argue republicans are a mix of libertarians, conservatives and moderates. I think the only thing linking them together are the “leave me alone” argument. That’s why I’m not concerned about women’s choice on abortion in a convention of states. I can only think of a few federal things they all want: secure border, gun rights, freedom of speech, states rights, etc. Id…

They only favor states' rights when it gives them the power to pollute the environment or eliminate individual rights.

Example: Was it "conservatives" or "libertarians" or "moderates" who prevented California from enforcing its own standards for auto emissions and fuel efficiency within its own borders?

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/17/climate/trump-california-...

Post reply on HN