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

61–70 of 123 posts

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

#61

Post by zamadatix »

rootusrootus wrote: post #13
prepend wrote: post #3

I 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.

1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade which was a pretty good clip IMO, churning enough that the 21st was to repeal the 18th for example. It has only really been the last 50 years it slowed down with the long proposed and relatively minor 27th amendment catching a second wind of state approvals. Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void.

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

#62

Post by Retric »

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…

If you’re worried about the parties selecting yes men to fill seats then at a mandatory primary. As it stands with gerrymandering we are already in a situation where people get selected by the party and sent to congress without any meaningful voting by the general public. Look up how many congressional seats don’t have any opposition running at all, that’s the antithesis of democracy.

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

#63

Post by CalChris »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #8
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…

A runaway constitutional convention can propose all kinds of amendments but they each must still be ratified by three fourths of the states.

The first constitutional convention was ratified by 9 out the 13 colonies, 2/3s. Rhode Island rejected it by referendum but ratified it by convention in 1790. It's a complex story. I remember reading that Washington avoided Rhode Island while it hadn't ratified.

That was for the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights which came later and were ratified by Congress + the State legislatures.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog...

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

#64

Post by randombits0 »

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…

There has never been a proposed amendment to reverse a right within the Bill of Rights. Doing so is antithetical to the entire concept of natural rights. But…

If that’s what they want, that is the only honest way to do so. Good luck.

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

#65

Post by lettergram »

no_wizard wrote: post #35
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…

Based on what evidence are we heading to a civil war conflict? I know partisanship is really high and such, but what recourses are failing so bad that we are heading into a situation that only armed conflict resolved? Yes, some idiots tried to storm congress and extremism is a real problem, that isn’t an oddity of absolute occurrence. If the UK can avoid civil war even with persistent IRA bombings I think we will too

> If the UK can avoid civil war even with persistent IRA bombings I think we will too

That wasn’t exactly the same, that was people from an occupied territory using terrorism. That occupied territory was effectively converted to a “free trade zone” and other agreements were made for a treaty.

I’d argue something such as a convention of states may be a treaty or a negotiated settlement with the government that’s necessary.

In terms of a civil war this is a pretty common opinion

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/09/16/is-the-us-h...

We have half the country with different values. To the point where people in Florida today can’t travel to NYC and eat food at a restaurant inside (unless private medical records are disclosed).

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keyton...

California has as a banned state employees from going to Texas.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/california-bans-sta...

BLM/ANTIFA burned down towns and killed people

https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4...

The mentioned capital riot you mentioned.

The left “fortified the election 2020 election”

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

Historical figures defiled and removed

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/11/23/thomas-jef...

People fired for vaccines, voting for Trump, donating to rittenhouse defense fund, taken off the air and “cancelled”, so on and so on.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-police-officer...

Take a step back to history. Nazis in Germany or marxists in Russia took power in a similar way. They had burnings of businesses, removal of statues, firing people for not being part of the party, concentrating them based on the fact they spread disease (Germanys excuse for concentrating undesirables in camps in the 30s).

Yes, we are already in the throes of a civil war, it just hasn’t been (too) kinetic yet. I personally don’t know if it will be a civil war or authoritarian take over, but what ever happens I think there’s a struggle happening right now.

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

#66

Post by smitty1e »

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?

It is trivial to view the process of rejecting the scourge of slavery as binary, and reject the 1787 Constitution for its disgusting 3/5ths compromise.

And yet: what if the course of history as it unfolded was roughly optimal?

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

#67

Post by kadoban »

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.

If you say that wasn't your intent, then I believe you.

Just so it's clear why I read it as intending to be positive:

The rest of that paragraph is fairly grounded and with emphasis on the benefits. "No more fighting", "each side got something it wanted", etc. That's typically the kind of thing you emphasize when you're pro-compromise.

I read the "not advocating either position" part as referring to gun rights and abortion.

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

#68

Post by dang »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #21
rasengan wrote: post #4

As the author well notes, a Constitutional Convention, unchecked and unregulated, could be means for disaster. We take for granted our Bill of Rights, on the daily. That said, luckily there's an entire process to follow to introduce and put into law any legislation. I was myself unaware of Article V. The speed at which the internet went from STOP SOPA to DEPLATFORM AND CENSOR EVERYTHING startles me, and if that is an…

That's a pretty rich critique, given the staggeringly censorious regime you imposed after your hostile takeover of Freenode. Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27246755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27495358

Please don't take threads on flamewar tangents, and especially not on flamewars that have already flamed and been rehashed god knows how many times already. You may not feel you owe someone else better, but you owe the community better, because doing that is really bad for discussion quality.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#69

Post by lettergram »

panarky wrote: post #50
lettergram wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

I suspect, it was lobbies from the auto manufacturers lol or some nuance to the law that had Other implications

I wouldn’t confuse peoples ideals with corrupt politicians.

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

#70

Post by erect_mom »

vzcx wrote: post #38
prepend wrote: post #3

I 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.

I'll take a crack at it. How about a two-person consularship with a red consul and a blue consul? Together they wield full executive control, but nothing happens unless both agree on a particular action. Would you ratify?

Why do you guys keep dreaming up there bizarre forms of government when the parliamentary system exists and works well enough…
Post reply on HN