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

101–110 of 123 posts

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

#101

Post by Retric »

q1w2 wrote: post #100
Retric wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there are regular primaries, then how are “party leaders” selecting who’s in office? At most it’s through funding campaigns which already happens.

Term limits are simply there to empower primaries. People who have already been elected have vast advantages in primaries which means they rarely face any real competition. Put another way winning 20 competitive elections in a row is never going to happen. Which means none of the local members of the party has had any say in who represents them in the election and the opposition party has also had no say for decades. That’s no more democratic than China’s “elections.”

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

#102

Post by ryathal »

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…

Term limits only benefit bureaucrats and lobbyists if you let them. People seem to think that the rules wouldn't change if term limits were introduced, but that is a faulty stating point. Current rules in the House and Senate are arbitrarily complicated and slated towards those who served longer, in a term limited world those rules would likely change to be simpler and grant power faster because no one has 30 years to sit around any more.

Serving in congress is always going to be biased towards the rich, but there are plenty of positions besides CEO that would be acceptable to have a 2-15 gap especially for a prestige position. If anything term limits make this better because currently politician is a career that can last for 30+ years, but that would require extreme skill to string together a 30+ year career of 5-15 year limited positions.

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

#103

Post by prepend »

threatofrain wrote: post #83
prepend wrote: 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.

I think the civil war was independent of the constitution and it would have occurred regardless of whatever the legal structure was.

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

#104

Post by prepend »

markdown wrote: post #94
prepend wrote: 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…

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

I think they did based on my reading of the 13th amendment “ Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

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

#105

Post by throwaway0a5e »

khuey wrote: post #84
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 was too deeply enshrined in federal law to be rid of, and it was ultimately abolished via extralegal means (namely the Civil War).

Remember who started the civil war? We had the civil was because the writing was on the wall for slavery. The south seceded because it seemed highly likely that slavery would be abolished through legal means.

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

#106

Post by ulkesh »

ulkesh wrote: post #48
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…

> (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…

Thank you all for your replies. I suppose I was meaning battleships in modern day (since I assumed that's what was meant to what I was replying), but the historical context is interesting and relevant.

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

#107

Post by rootusrootus »

readflaggedcomm wrote: post #90
rootusrootus wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That sounds like a feature rather than a bug.

Certainly there are different perspectives. I think many people don't trust that we have the ability to change the Constitution to suit modern American culture without ruining it. But it's also arguable that we could do much to clarify modern interpretation of principles that aren't as obvious given the dramatic shift in technology between 1789 and today.

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

#108

Post by dragonwriter »

zamadatix wrote: post #61
rootusrootus wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade

No, it didn't. It averaged more than one per decade, which isn't the same thing.

In that period you had the post-Civil War Amendments (3, between 1865 and 1870), more than 40 years with nothing, another burst from 1913-1920 (3 amendments), a burst in 1933 (2 amendments), one by itself in 1951, and then a flurry overlapping the end of the period from 1961-1971 (4 amendments, 2 each before and after your 1965 cutoff).

And, just to be complete, after that you’ve got one solitary amendment in 1992 (the last of the 11 that have passed of the 12 proposed together as the Bill of Rights) and nothing since.

> Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void.

61 from the 12th Amendment, the last of the fairly immediate post-Constitution ones, in 1804 to the 13th, the first of the post-Civil War ones, in 1865.

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

#109

Post by dragonwriter »

prepend wrote: post #104
markdown wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think they did based on my reading of the 13th amendment “ Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

> I think they did based on my reading of the 13th amendment

They didn't, and you quote the part that makes that clear:

“except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”

A whole lot of current social issues can be traced back to things rooted in the way penal slavery, and targeted over-criminalization and policing to supply bodies for penal slavery, immediately replaced chattel slavery with the 13th Amendment.

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

#110

Post by taylodl »

wwweston wrote: post #98
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…

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

Bingo!
Post reply on HN