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

111–120 of 123 posts

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

#111

Post by no_wizard »

lettergram wrote: post #65
no_wizard wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 neces…

I guess I see this differently. I see the last gasp of the Republican Party more than anything, as the younger you go (and not terribly younger, at that[0]), they are losing influence, and are trying every trick in the book to maintain that influence.

Note too, that things like the statues being removed tend to be because we are finally acknowledging our historical issues, like having prominent statues celebrating slave owners may not be a trend we want to continue, its not being done in way to silence political opposition. Is there any reason we need to hold slave owners in such high esteem we keep statues around of them? Even our founders don't deserve to be forever enshrined in the American conscious in that way, no?

The thing people forget about the Nazi rise to power is it wasn't just predicated out of nowhere, it was a ripe time where the beliefs espoused by the Nazi party where a lot more popular and acceptable in that era, unfortunately.

[0]: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-number-of-americans-id...

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

#112

Post by threatofrain »

prepend wrote: post #103
threatofrain wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The southern states were required to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition of having any federal representation, and it nullified a prior Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution. The 15th Amendment was specifically designed to counter anticipation of tactics to dodge the 14th Amendment.

You were just talking about how the 14th Amendment reflects how the Constitution adapts to the changing values of a nation. Yes, after one side shoots the other side into agreement, and after 750,000 lives ended. Then the victor decided the outcome of history.

One can only imagine how the course of the Constitution would have been "independent" to the course of the Civil War if the northern states had lost.

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

#113

Post by zamadatix »

dragonwriter wrote: post #108
zamadatix wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 amendm…

Yes meant to say averaged more than, good catch.

1865 to 1965 was just to show a 100 year period were activity stayed hot to not say there weren't amendments before or after. In regards to the 2 after '65 cutoff they are still older than the 50 year claim (the 26th as of this year) so I didn't feel the need to mention them, only noting the 27th which as you mentioned passed in '92.

If one is interested in an exact list of amendment ratification dates rather than a summary that it has been slow for the last 50 but quite busy since it was made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Unit... is probably a more apt resource.

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

#114

Post by harpersealtako »

tomrod wrote: post #26
jdpedrie wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those two things are in no way comparable.

But they are, as both are no longer necessary in a civil, functioning society. Consider Europe, much of Asia, which have been able to achieve democracy, stability, and little need for open carry or slavery. Now, one has a lot of open supporters (gun rights exceeding the US second amendment, in that the regulated militia component gets left out).

1) A more fair interpretation of the pro-gun argument would be that firearm rights are designed to guarantee long-term stability and democracy. The current stability of a small amount of relatively young democracies in Europe and Asia that do not have gun rights does not debunk the claim that gun rights protect against tyranny over the long term.

2) Considering the EXTREMELY violent, turbulent history of the last 100-150 years of governance (democratic and otherwise) in Europe and Asia, I don't think this is the strong argument you think it is.

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

#115

Post by dragonwriter »

zamadatix wrote: post #113
dragonwriter wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 amendm…

Yes meant to say averaged more than, good catch. 1865 to 1965 was just to show a 100 year period were activity stayed hot to not say there weren't amendments before or after. In regards to the 2 after '65 cutoff they are still older than the 50 year claim (the 26th as of this year) so I didn't feel the need to mention them, only noting the 27th which as you mentioned passed in '92. If one is interested in an exact li…

> 1865 to 1965 was just to show a 100 year period were activity stayed hot

But it wasn't a 100 year period where activity stayed hot. It was a 106 year period (stretching to 1971) starting with a 5 year period where activity was hot, followed by a 43 year period of complete inactivity, and them some brief periods of sporadic activity, ending with a the single most active decade since the 1790s.

A 100 year period where activity stayed hot is a complete misrepresentation.

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

#116

Post by smitty1e »

kadoban wrote: post #73
smitty1e wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 necess…

Look at any large-scale, peacetime organizational change. It ain't beanbag, even before beong as fraught as abolition.

Those tearing down the Founders (looking at you, 1619 Project) need to have done more than point fingers and cast stones before being regarded seriously.

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

#117

Post by markdown »

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.”

> except as a punishment

Anyone convicted of a crime in the US can be turned into a slave as punishment, and that happens every day. US prisons are filled with slaves right this minute.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/9/9/slavery-in-the-u...

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/884989263

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

#118

Post by panarky »

lettergram wrote: post #69
panarky wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn't confuse what people claim their ideals are with what they actually do when they have power.

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

#119

Post by smitty1e »

smitty1e wrote: post #116
kadoban wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 necess…

Look at any large-scale, peacetime organizational change. It ain't beanbag, even before beong as fraught as abolition. Those tearing down the Founders (looking at you, 1619 Project) need to have done more than point fingers and cast stones before being regarded seriously.

'even before being'

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

#120

Post by prepend »

threatofrain wrote: post #112
prepend wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The southern states were required to ratify the 14th Amendment as a condition of having any federal representation, and it nullified a prior Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution. The 15th Amendment was specifically designed to counter anticipation of tactics to dodge the 14th Amendment. You were just talking about how the 14th Amendment reflects how the Constitution adapts to the changing values of a nation. Yes,…

What I meant was that slavery was a big divide in the US. This was not caused by the constitution. I think any founding documents would have had the same effect: massive bloodshed to force part of the country to stop slavery.

When I say independent of the constitution, I mean that no matter what legal foundational framework, I think we would have had the civil war to end slavery. Even if we had the magma carta or whatever.

Post reply on HN