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

51–60 of 123 posts

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

#51

Post by smitty1e »

For those interested, the current hub of this activity (AFAICT) is => https://conventionofstates.com/

The ship of state is not on a good course.

While the idea of Article V is indeed fraught, anyone who thinks a lesser remedy obtains places excessive face in leaky vessels, IMO.

For this audience, consider the problem as a badly needed refactor. Whereas there were originally local, state, and federal government levels in addition to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the last century has seen collapse.

We're close to a unitary executive atop a Deep State, with a hollow congress/judiciary rubber-stamping the fiats.

A proper Article V plan would redistribute power, not wealth, and be fully sorted and in the can ahead of any convention. Such a meeting should be called to rubber-stamp said plan and preclude these runaway convention fears.

The more technically-minded audience of this site should be instrumental in delivering a plan that can't be commandeered (as easily) by the usual pencil necks.

For example: putting all of the legislation in a public git repo that anyone can read, hit with AI, and track what these congresscritters are getting up to, especially who is making the commits (!), which would obviously be people who stand for election.

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

#52

Post by travisgriggs »

kadoban wrote: post #14
travisgriggs wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Which part of “I’m not advocating either position” and “thought experiment” led you to need to ask this?

Did I put forth any praise of the actual 3/5’s compromise?

The use of the 3/5s example (rather than some other less ludicrous compromise) if anything calls out the inanity of the thought experiment.

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

#53

Post by no_wizard »

gizmo385 wrote: post #39
lettergram wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. They believe in state's rights in theory, but I'm not sure they do in practice. The right in the US has repe…

Their voters definitely believe the talking points of the “states rights” position

I don’t think the Republican Party itself acts in a way that is consistent at all with this idea

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

#54

Post by Retric »

throw0101a wrote: post #49
joe_the_user wrote: post #25

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. 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. Accounta…

Congress only has collective power, no individual can wage war etc. Yet it’s only the president that has any term limits that’s the opposite of what we should be doing if you’re worried about loose cannons.

~20 year term limits aren’t going to see most members of congress in their last term. However, it would still have real impacts as people aren’t going to end up nearly as complacent. We have 3 members that are currently in office for 40+ years and many on track to reach that point very soon.

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

#55

Post by throw0101a »

kadoban wrote: post #45
tadfisher wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

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

That 'extra country' would have all the things you describe, possibly without the check of the Free States on them to eventually apply pressure to get rid of slavery.

There was even a possibility of improvement: was it Andrew Johnson that cut a deal to allow the slavers back into power?

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

#56

Post by dane-pgp »

travisgriggs wrote: post #12
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…

> 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…

I support this lateral-thinking approach of finding a Great Compromise, and I think it just needs a slight alteration to make it more palatable to both sides, and to harness the logic and tradition of federalism. So how about this:

If the amendment passes, then each state can decide for itself at what point (from conception to birth) human life begins, and decide for itself what constitutes a well-regulated militia.

In effect, this means that some states could choose to have no (legal) abortions, and others could choose to have no (legal) private gun ownership, but they wouldn't be allowed to punish people for travelling to a different state for an abortion or to fire a gun.

Even with such a change in the laws, the number of abortions and gun crimes probably wouldn't change very much, but the real benefit would be reducing the level of political tribalism when it comes to the presidency, and hopefully allowing some nuance into the primaries and election campaigns.

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

#57

Post by leetcrew »

travisgriggs wrote: post #12
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…

> 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…

first of all, trading guns for abortion isn't much like the 3/5ths compromise to begin with; it's just wrapping two unrelated issues into the same deal. that doesn't seem more stable than compromising on the issues individually (eg, "you can own guns as long as they don't look too scary" and "you can have abortions, but only up to the yth trimester).

second, the only thing the 3/5ths compromise really settled was the balance of power between slave states and free states, and only temporarily. that balance was continually perturbed during western expansion and we eventually fought a war over it. AFAIK, it was probably necessary for the US to exist at all, but it doesn't seem that "great" in retrospect.

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

#58

Post by mcny »

fuckcensorship wrote: post #16
markdown wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

» which made it illegal except as punishment for a convicted crime

It is time to revise this in my opinion. Just because I am in prison does not mean you can require me to work. If you can't afford to feed, clothe, house, and provide necessary medical services, release me. The fact that the state of Texas can deny air conditioning to inmates (when the temperature is ought to be enough for the US to require Texas to release all inmates in those conditions. How can states that are arguably in direct violation of basic human rights still have representation in the union is beyond me.

» Refusing to install air conditioning is a matter not just of short-term cost savings, but of appearing tough on crime. State and local governments go to astonishing lengths to avoid installing air conditioning in prisons. In 2016, Louisiana spent over $1 million in legal bills in an attempt to avoid installing air conditioning on death row, an amount four times higher than the actual cost of installing air conditioning, according to an expert witness. Similarly, in 2014, the people of Jefferson Parish, LA only voted to build a new jail after local leaders promised there would be no air conditioning.

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/06/18/air-conditionin...

It isn't just Texas. Prisoners throughout the country are malnourished and starving. It costs way too much to make a phone call so much so that public libraries offer assistance with phone calls.

Democracy should not mean tyranny of the majority. I don't understand how this is controversial. If states and local governments are in violation of the constitution, they should automatically lose representation in the union.

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

#59

Post by jakelazaroff »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #23
kadoban wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And what were the alternatives? Do something that gives the south too much power and slavery will soon be too deeply enshrined in federal law to be rid of. Count slaves as 0/5ths like the north wanted and the south won't ratify the constitution and you'll get two nations, one of which definitely won't be outlawing slavery. The past is full of situations where people needed to chart the least bad course through a sea…

Slavery isn’t an issue of “modern morals”. Any Black person in the 1700s could have told you that it was wrong. The fact that slaveholders disagreed doesn’t mean it was some unsolved moral conundrum.

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

#60

Post by leetcrew »

travisgriggs wrote: post #52
kadoban wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which part of “I’m not advocating either position” and “thought experiment” led you to need to ask this? Did I put forth any praise of the actual 3/5’s compromise? The use of the 3/5s example (rather than some other less ludicrous compromise) if anything calls out the inanity of the thought experiment.

"I'm not advocating either position" sounds like you are referring to abortion and gun rights. I didn't read it as applying to the 3/5th compromise itself.
Post reply on HN