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

71–80 of 123 posts

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

#71

Post by unclebucknasty »

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…

>republicans are a mix of libertarians, conservatives and moderates.

>only thing linking them together are the “leave me alone” argument. That’s why I’m not concerned about women’s choice

I think you're confusing ideologies with practice. Ideologues in the coalition you reference find a home in the Republican party in our binary system, because of the traditional Republican brand. But, the real ethos and practice of the party itself are decidedly not one of "leave me alone".

Women's choice is actually one of the more prominent indicators of this, and recent action in Republican-led Texas on that issue is a harbinger.

The party also routinely lobbies against equal rights for "outgroups", proposes book bans, and answers dissenting voices with vitriol, hostility and (recently) violence.

I've also never seen the modern party rally for free speech with which it did not agree. 1A arguments are instead most-often wielded when defending itself against those who find its positions to be repressive towards other groups (ironically).

Aside: I've earnestly never understood how libertarians reconcile the party's staunch opposition to gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, etc. with a "leave-me-alone" worldview.

In any case, it seems the true underlying theme of the party is the imposition of its will and enforcement of its regime, resulting in a "very particular brand of freedom". So, I'm not convinced that a convention of states (where that party is influential) would reflect anything but that.

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

#72

Post by ABeeSea »

no_wizard wrote: post #44
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

It’s based on the nature of the Senate and Republican gerrymandering of the house. A minority of extreme views from rural areas control the politics of America.

A poll of “all Americans” is useless when the Senate exists.

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

#73

Post by kadoban »

smitty1e wrote: post #66
kadoban wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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

Sure, but what if it wasn't?

It seems like there's a bias to viewing history where we judge _our_ outcome as the best one even if it had huge downsides.

I don't see why we should assume the outcome we have is any better than average or why those decisions generally judged to be "necessary evil"s actually were necessary. They were only necessary to get exactly our outcome, there's nothing saying that it was actually good.

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

#74

Post by chrismcb »

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…

I don't think unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists would have more power than they do now. One issue with term limits is that there is some power in trying to get reelected. On the other hand I'm not sure how much that matters considering how hard it is for an incumbent to lose

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

#75

Post by kadoban »

throw0101a wrote: post #55
kadoban wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The "applying pressure" part was going to war.

Not sure unioning up with slavers for ~a century, extending their influence, undermining the morality of your founding document, etc. can be judged to be worth it if you're just going to have to shoot them until they stop slaving anyway.

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

#76

Post by davemp »

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?

What happens when one person dies suddenly?

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

#77

Post by tptacek »

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…

I chose my words deliberately. It's not, as was argued upthread, exactly what the right wants.

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

#78

Post by prepend »

markdown wrote: post #7
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.

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.

Slavery should have been outlawed, but the gun bit isn’t so bad, I think.

But I think, at the time, slavery was still legal in most of the world so while it would have been right to outlaw it, it’s understandable how it was allowed. And the amendments outlawing it actually show how the constitution works as ideas change over time.

If Americans change their opinion on guns then that could change as well. But I don’t think that will happen in 34 states.

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

#79

Post by unclenoriega »

davemp wrote: post #76
vzcx wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What happens when one person dies suddenly?

The appropriate vice-consul takes over, presumably.

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

#80

Post by dragonwriter »

No, a constitutional convention isn't close, and, contrary to the suggestions in that article, no particular threat to established rights would be posed by the lack of procedural guidelines for such a convention because any Amendment proposed by a convention would still need a 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
Post reply on HN