A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019) • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 3:47 AM UTC

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 is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution.

Yes, there is, and it is specifically per the current Constitution; that is, the Constitution itself limits the agenda and outcome by excluding certain matters from amendment (a lot more earlier on, now most notably the equal representation of states in the Senate.)

> If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion.

I can imagine a convention proposing such an Amendment. I can't imagine it getting the support of 3/4 of the states needed for ratification, which is the main constraint on the impact of a convention—that it's outcome only matters to the extent a sufficient supermajority of states signs on to Amendments it proposes.

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

#82

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 3:48 AM UTC

CalChris wrote: post #63

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> The first constitutional convention was ratified by 9 out the 13 colonies, 2/3s.

That's because the ratification of the Constitution wasn't governed by the rules for amendments, whether introduced by Congress or Convention, under the Constitution.

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

#83

Post by threatofrain » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 3:49 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #78

markdown wrote: 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…

> 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.

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

#84

Post by khuey » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 3:49 AM UTC

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #23

kadoban wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you by any chance seriously putting forth the 3/5s compromise as a positive outcome?

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).

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

#85

Post by nradov » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 3:49 AM UTC

kadoban wrote: post #18

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.

I used to agree with that. The problem, I've since been convinced, is that increases the power of lobbyists. If the only people that can stick around long enough to figure out how to get anything done are the lobbyists, they're going to have an even more outsized role in what laws get passed.

It's not just lobbyists. Congressional term limits would also increase the power of staffers, who would tend to just move from one Congressperson to another as they term out.

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

#86

Post by jack_h » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 3:51 AM UTC

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…

> 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].

That's not really a fair reading of Presser. That case merely upheld Cruikshank and by extension Barron. Since the Second Amendment was only a limitation on Congress (pre-incorporation) the State could effectively do anything. Presser just added on that States couldn't go so far as to deprive the Federal government the resource of the militia.

> This is the first I've heard of a regular citizen having the right to parade around in their own battleships.

People definitely had their own canons and ships back in the day and it wasn't solely a United States thing [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque

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

#87

Post by kadoban » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 3:58 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #85

kadoban wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to agree with that. The problem, I've since been convinced, is that increases the power of lobbyists. If the only people that can stick around long enough to figure out how to get anything done are the lobbyists, they're going to have an even more outsized role in what laws get passed.

It's not just lobbyists. Congressional term limits would also increase the power of staffers, who would tend to just move from one Congressperson to another as they term out.

True, but is that much better? Ideally I think we want the main driving force behind what laws are written to be the actual people we elect, right? Otherwise, what's the point?

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

#88

Post by nradov » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 4:01 AM UTC

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…

In times up until the Civil War there were private citizens who owned ships armed with cannons far more powerful than any modern small arms.

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

#89

Post by readflaggedcomm » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 4:38 AM UTC

jack_h wrote: post #86

ulkesh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (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…

> 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]. That's not really a fair reading of Presser. That case merely upheld Cruikshank and by extension Barron. Since the Second Amendment was only a limitation on Congress (pre-incorporation) the State could effectively do anything. Presser just added on that States couldn't go so fa…

As written, the First Amendment restricts Congress, while the Second restricts at least all parties to the document, both Federal and State levels. Obviously, such plain readings aren't popular.

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

#90

Post by readflaggedcomm » Mon, Nov 29, 2021, 4:39 AM UTC

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.

That sounds like a feature rather than a bug.