Live data from Hacker News

A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

coloradofiscal.org

91–100 of 123 posts

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

#91
post #48

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…

> (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…

These were called "privateers", and they were very, very common all through the Age of Sail, not just in the United States, but in essentially all countries with a merchant or naval service.

How it worked was that during the (rare) intervals of peace, you'd keep a stockpile of guns on shore, and run your ship as a more or less ordinary merchant vessel (virtually all of which were armed at the time, though not as heavily armed as a naval vessel or a kitted-out privateer).

When war broke out, as it always did eventually, you'd cram your ship to the gills with guns and crew and get a license from some government (not necessarily your own!) to cruise against that government's enemy. This was called a "letter of marque". It was entirely possible for a (say) Dutch privateer to get a letter of marque from the (say) British government to attack (say) French vessels.

Normally privateers would limit themselves to attacking enemy merchant ships, or occasionally looting enemy ports, as their primary motivation was profit. They typically did not want to tangle with full-blown naval vessels.

Privateers were outlawed in the 19th Century by an international treaty signed by most countries. Interestingly, the United States has never signed that treaty.

The relevant constitutional authority in the United States is Article I Section 8, which explicitly grants Congress the authority to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal".

The advantage to the government was that it effectively had a secondary navy it could hot-swap in without having to pay to support it during peacetime.

The advantage to the privateers was that they got to keep the lion's share of the value of any ship, and any ship's cargo, they captured (the government did take a rakeoff, of course, because that is what governments do). It was essentially legalized piracy.

Figure out how much an entire container ship would be worth if you were allowed to just go out and grab one, and you'll be in the right ballpark, except back then it was expensive spices, precious metals, silk, etc. rather than electronic trinkets.

Though it was obviously a high-risk business, some privateer owners (and even crews) became incredibly wealthy from this practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer

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

#92

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…

Term limits have also been cited as one factor in the dysfunction of the California legislature after the mid seventies. Essentially the party leadership controls everything because the rank and file are all inexperienced and just vote the way the party tells them to.

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

#93
post #48

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…

> (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…

Into the early 1800's, privately-owned warships were not at all rare. During the Revolutionary War the vast majority of the Navy consisted of privateers (aka private citizens warships).

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

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

#94
post #78
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.

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 t…

The amendments didn't outlaw slavery, and the US constitution still explicitly allows slavery.

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

#95
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.

The result being that in 2021, slavery is still legal in the US. That's beyond abhorrent.

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

#96
post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

> And the amendments outlawing it actually show how the constitution works as ideas change over time. The amendment to end slavery happened on the backbone of killing several hundred thousand Americans. The compromise between two sides was to shoot people until one side agreed.

> The amendment to end slavery

This didn't happen, and the constitution still explicitly allows slavery.

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

#97
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…

> Term limits are inherently anti-democratic.

No more than age limits to be allowed to vote or hold office. Limits don't halt democracy.

> membership in congress would be even more held by the type of person who jump from CEO to congress to Federal bureaucracy and so-forth

Term limits don't change that. The problems to address are:

  1) they are underpaid while in office,

  2) they are allowed to act in the interests of their previous industry ties while in office, and

  3) when they are out of office they are allowed to profit from having held office.
To address #1 pay them ridiculous FU money while in office. And make #2 and #3 very strictly policed, harsh felonies.

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

#98
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…

Amen. Also, we have term limits, they’re just not statutory, they’re democratic (and called “elections”).

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

#99

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.

Never underestimate the power of large groups of people to do irrational things in a state of mania, and to pressure/harass the rest of the population into silence.

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

#100
post #62

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…

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.

Correct - and term limits would make that situation much worse.
Post reply on HN