The US Constitution is in a dire state, and I'll explain why from two perspectives: Conservatives: The US was intended as a compact of states who would handle their own affairs, with the Federal government acting in matters between states or between nations. This understanding has been left behind in favor of a big Federal government that meddles in states' affairs. Federal taxes and spending takes money from certain states and redistributes it to others. But the problem itself isn't these things - they are just a symptom. The real culprit is a view of the constitution that is not literalist in nature. For the constitution to mean anything it must be interpreted with reference to the pure definitions of the words when enacted - leaving interpretation to the arbitrary whim of liberal judges leaves the Federal government with a clear path to expansion, and is responsible for a lot of the mess we're in today. You argue constitutional separation of church and state isn't as strong as the left contends - I agree with you. Let's have a convention to sort these issues out and create a new, more relevant form of constitutional republicanism. Liberals: Each administration chips away at the civil liberties of the people. From warrantless wiretapping to complete suspensions of habeas corpus - the expansion of unaccountable executive power has been swift and irreversible - each violation creates a precedent that the next President continues. With a constitutional convention we could create greater checks and balances on government - perhaps even an oversight branch of government to deal with executive grasps at power. Some middleground: From memory in 1969 President Nixon bombed Cambodia with 3000 B52 bombers. Perhaps this was justified, perhaps it was not - but the fact that Congress didn't find this out until 1972 clearly demonstrates that Congress has no political interest in holding Presidents accountable, and that the Congressional declaration of war is out of date. This is a new world with nuclear weapons and terrorism - we should get together and create a new constitutional solution applicable to the 21st Century, not the 18th. Without carefully defined constitutional restrictions and the ability to enforce them unaccountable power is at the whim of whoever is in office. Democrat or Republican. So, my question is... if in the future a President is elected and proposes a Constitutional Convention to resolve these matters - would you support this action or not? You don't have to agree with what I said above, just that we should have this discussion. Thanks
There are diametrically opposed factions in this nation. The union need be dissolved and something more akin to the articles of confederation need be instituted. The communication abilities of today make it doable.
No I would not support a ConCon, because >99% of our constitutional problems do not arise from any flaw in the Constitution as presently amended. A complete waste of time, since there is no way to get to J. Black's pronouncement in Everson from the establishment clause and/or the 14A incorporation clause.
I would agree that something like that would be best, but I think the US can create something more along those lines in a convention. The union came out of the confederacy, I figure it can go the other way with the right conditions. There is a problem - there is next to no accountability for unconstitutional actions, and clauses which have quite restricted meanings have been accepted by pretty much everyone in government to mean something completely different. You can take the Everson example, or something as recent as indefinite detention. Things which the government views as necessary and would likely make it into a revised constitution - like judicial review for example, make it possible to use similarly implied reasoning on other issues. If we had obviously necessary powers enshrined explicitly in the constitution then there would be less of a temptation to have shifty, technically unconstitutional views on everyday issues. Think of it like a web of lies - once you've told a few lies one figures he may as well continue. Regardless, there is an imbalance in the direction of government toward the unconstitutional - why is this? I feel it's because inadequate oversight powers have been set up so that unconstitutional actions are almost never called out by Congress and at worst put through vague, uncommitted criticism from the judiciary which has very few enforcement powers. A constitutional convention could settle this imbalance once and for all and create real positive incentives to do the right thing - isn't that the whole point of law? Shouldn't higher law reflect this onto our elected officials? Let's be honest - there is an infinitesimal chance that the two parties are going to solve these constitutional issues themselves. Without drastic measures this will continue indefinitely.
With the current intensity and difference of opinions between the liberals and conservatives, I think a constitutional convention would just be deadlocked and nothing would come of it. I wouldn't mind seeing our country turned into a confederation, or even a pair of federations united by a treaty. Maybe we could get all the blue states to create a federation, the red states to create a confederation and both could create a treaty to allow people to emigrate, travel and trade freely - kind of like the EU - we could even create a treaty for military defense. Then each of the two new nations could run things as they see fit, and people could choose which type of nation to life in.
I was just wondering if a good liberty loving President was elected and proposed this if people would be for or against it. I don't like the idea of splitting the nation - I don't see any reason why this can't be resolved reasonably in a single country. In any case, government is only going to get more unconstitutional as time goes on. Do you think it will reach a point where people have had enough and decide to do something about it, like elect someone from outside the two parties, revolt, whatever?
There is plenty of accountability. Hell, if nothing else, any (or every) member of the federal government could be fired with a constitutional amendment. So what makes you think they wouldn't treat a new amendment the same way? I don't know what makes you think that isn't the case already. No there wouldn't. The only way to reduce that temptation is to elect people to office who have respect for the rule of law. Since the effective majority of the electorate is devoid of such respect, the results are unsurprising. Actually under the Constitution it has none whatsoever; but in a legal environment in which the mindset that the Judiciary is the last word on the Constitution is about is omnipresent as water is to fish, that is a non-issue anyway. For the life of me I can't imagine why anyone would assume the three branches would even survive a ConCon. Again, while these might be so labeled, their roots do not lie anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
There have been many calls for a convention over the last two centuries. The reason it has never happened is because when everyone thinks about it becomes clear that it could be a disaster. There would be no limits on what the convention could do and ill considered changes could be a disaster. If you want to make changes in the constitution it can be amended and everyone can have time to think about it as the states consider it. Our constitution has worked well for us, I for one don't see the need to rush to make any substantial changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
What part of the past/current abuses of the constitution lead you to believe a retooling of the constitution would in anyway lead to stronger protections of the people freedoms already enshrined in the present version of the constitution?
My initial reaction is that I'd be fine with a constitutional convention. But I think there ought to be some up front agreements going in. First, the ratifying conventions should definitely not be composed of professional politicians. They should be composed of regular people who are selected by voters at the precinct level. Also, I would prefer that any new proposed constitution only take effect between the states who opt to ratify it. Any states who choose not to ratify could either remain united under the current constitution or revert to their former status of sovereign, independent states.
Why bother? A "conservative" was the deciding vote that made blatantly unconstitutional Obamacare the law of the land.. The People just reinstalled a president who appointed two agenda laden progressive leftists, and are absolutely giddy over the prospect of his appointing more of same at some point in the next four years.
That is too drastic, and stupid. Republicans outnumber Canadians. We invade the North. Or maybe a boat-lift to New Zealand. Let the Democrats have this Turkey.
Suspending the Constitution, or opening it up to rewriting is the wet dream of every leftist. As it is they violate the Constitution with every breath they take, but at least the document is ostensibly still in effect. Agreeing to open up the Constitution would be the final nail in our coffin. Amerika is no longer a free country. Her institutions have been infiltrated and corrupted, and the people themselves have been made ignorant and corrupt. The Constitution means next to nothing - might as well burn it.
Sounds like a typical conservative gesture: when you can't win by reason (Or the ballot box which most certainly is not the same thing), then use violence instead. I seem to recall that the sowers of discord in Dante's Inferno did not turn out very well - were themselves split quite literally as they rounded their circle. Nor did those who rebelled against country or God - frozen in the lake of Dis. It might be fun to have an entire thread in which we can take terms placing figures from our current troubles into the appropriate circles of hell. The rules usually require that only the dead are qualified for placement, but perhaps some exceptions in this case.
To what end? To get abortion in the constitution? to get gay marriage in the constitution? going to ban social security and medicare? Repeal the 13th amendment? Please. Get real. The Conservative argument that the Constitution should be interpreted as the words were written with no allowance for social changes is a huge pile of stinking cat crap. The people writing and interpreting the Constitution in 1789 were among the most gifted linguists of their time. What they wanted was to create a document that could be used to govern. Not just in 1789 but for all their posterity. That is what they created. The fact that we can look into the document and reasonably infer from multiple amendments a right to privacy that extends to abortion or gun rights not tied strictly to militia membership allows the execution of the document to change as society changes. Also: Consider the impact the uncertainty of a constitutional convention would have on the economy. The result would be nothing short of disastrous.
And every time we come up for air we are snatched up by a demon and tortured exquisitely, but, but, it will be a peaceful invasion.
