Let's have a Constitutional Convention

Only necessary because we were stupid enough to pass the 18th. Delete both.

This one's a keeper.

 

Every citizen deserves representation. The citizens of Washington DC do not have it. This is only a portion of what they deserve and so should not be repealed.

Keep this!

 

Absolutely necessary and should have been considered during the original writing.

I don't care one way or the other about this, so long as the draft age follows suit. 18, 21, 30, doesn't make much difference.

 

This amendment was actually drafted as a package of 12 amendments. Ten of those twelve became the Bill of Rights. Since the proposal had no expiration date, it was still good when Gregory Watson resurrected it. It was a good idea in 1789 and it's a good idea today.

 

The CBO reports that from 1987-1996 the poor saw 81% increase in income. Middle class saw 9% increase. Rich saw 2% loss. Top 1% rich saw 24% loss.

From 1996-2005, the poor saw a 109% increase in income. The middle class saw a 26% increase, the rich saw a 9% increase, the top1 % rich saw a 23% loss in income, and the top 0.01% rich saw a 65% loss in income. Its not as bad as people make it out to be.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional/08/10/income.pdf



The constitution isn't a "living" document. Its an "everlasting" document that is meant to be mostly set in stone. Our founder knew that one day there would be technological advances they had not foreseen. Thats why they allowed the federal government (with the vote of the states) to change the powers granted to government with a constitutional amendment. The constitution wasn't meant to allow government powers, it was made to restrict it. If you've read any of the Federalist papers (written by the founding fathers and constitutional convention delegates, ironically) you'll know that they made the constitution the way it was for FEAR of government expanding its powers.

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy."
-Thomas Jefferson opposes "entitlements"

"The Utopian schemes of leveling (wealth redistribution) and the community goods (federal ownership) are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. They are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional. Now, what property can the colonists be conceived to have, if their money may be granted away to others, without their consent?"
-George Mason

"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself
-James Madison

 

The author's premise is completely false and therefore his entire discussion meaningless. The Constituition expressly forbids a convention from writing a new Constitution. It is limited to a "convention for proposing amendments"..."to this Constitution". Thus, only amendments may be proposed.

The author fails to mention that the states have applied in sufficient number to cause a convention call by Congress, 49 states, over 700 applications for a convention call.
These application can be read at www.foavc.org.

Instead of the author wasting everyone's time on a fantasy convention to write a new Constitution that can never be held, why not instead discuss real amendment proposals as put forth by the states at a read Article V Convention? I think this would be much more useful.

 

I'll be happy to read your link, Bill. I'm a little confused why you suggest we discuss amendment proposals but don't propose one yourself.

What would you like to see amended?

 

I would have strong states rights. With safe guards to prevent human rights abuse. No one wants a repeat of Jim Crowe laws. The only job for the federal government would be national defense and foreign policy. Basically the only job permitted for the president is to handle external affairs. All domestic affairs would be handled by the states.

Second the constitution will require that under no circumstance my the federal government tax, issue debt or require licenses fees. The may not generate any income of any kind. Instead, all state governments must hand over 30% of their revenue to the federal government. How the states get their money is their business. But 1/3 goes to the feds.

With no ability to raise revenue, the power of the central government will be under control.

Why the above? Because recent history shows the importance of decentralized power. The morons in Washington DC are destroying the US. If their power was limited to state governments, then the only thing they can destroy was their own state. The odds that all 50 states legislatures destroy their own state at the same time will be highly unlikely. That means the nation survives. Can you imagine for example if the people who ran Greece ran Washington DC? We can avoid that problem with states rights.

 

All good points. What about trade disputes between states? How would you have that handled. It's the camel's nose under the tent with this Constitution.

 

Accountable puts the cart before the horse. Until Congress is made to call a convention discussion of specific amendments is actually useless. Besides, if he takes the time to go to the site and actually read the applications he'll find that most political issues of today from nullification to gay marriage already have been asked for by the states. In short, it's all on the agenda already leaving very little necessary for new proposal.

This should not be surprising given that 49 states have submitted over 700 applications for a convention call, an average of one application every four months since the founding of this nation.

As to the massive suggestions of changes made by Accountable, I'd like to point out to him that each of these changes he proposes requires 3/4th support in the states and 2/3rds support in a convention. The chances of even one of his proposals making it, let alone the massive changes he suggests are, frankly, politically null when one goes from theory to reality. That's why there have been over 10,000 amendment proposals in Congress with only 27 approved, a percentage of approximately 0.0027.

Moreover Accountable fails to provide the required portion of solution. What will he put in its place? He suggests returning to the original taxing system in the Constitution yet makes massive changes in Congress making this nearly impossible. I could cite several examples. It is obvious he has not taken the time to study the logic behind the Constitution and why it was established as it was. He needs to do this so that when he makes proposals, they make logical sense. He needs to remember that ultimately the form of government he suggests must actually work as a system and his doesn't.

 

Ha ha ha. I love that camel commit. I have not heard that one in a while.

I see that as per of freedom of movement and freedom to associate with whom I like. If I want to do business with a guy in Texas, then I am free to associate with that man. As a free man, I can travel where I like, and interact with who ever I like. Business if a form of human interaction.

So if a state wants to be in my Confederacy, they must honor free trade between states.

 

So it's best to go in completely unprepared? I disagree.

I indeed went to the link you provided. Having personally verified a few random claims by checking the congressional record myself, I can tell you it disturbs me that so many requests have been made, apparently without answer. This is the problem with things that are swept under a rug and ignored: it is d@amned hard to find out what, if anything, was done at the time. The internet is a great tool, but falls short in this area. Do you happen to have such information on one or a few of these cases independent of Friend of the Article V Convention? or even that they provide? I'm pretty good at finding verification. These things take time to research, but I'm fascinated enough (and have a constitutional scholar that just might help me) to try to run at least one or two of these to ground.

You should know that this is a chat forum, not Congress itself. The thread is a mental exercise. While such discussions can and do take on a life of their own, such is not a mandatory goal. It is obviously a goal of the people of your link, and that is laudable.

Please do. It might be fascinating.

 

Just for conversation, let's use marijuana. Some states would legalize it, at least partially, while others would not. For the sake of conversation let's pretend some states make it completely legal as a recreational drug. Are you suggesting that the sovereign state of Confusion must allow you to sell what is illegal there to it's citizens simply because your home state of Relaxation allows its use?

[I hope I didn't convolute things too much with the fake state names]

 

It would be easier to pass a statutory law in Congress legalizing marijuana.

 

Maybe, but that's not the point. Marijuana was just for an example. It could have been unapproved kiddie meals in California or anything else. GF want's the federal gov't out of domestic affairs. I'm just toying with the interstate conflict thing. I hate what congresses past and present have done to the Constitution, especially the abuses in the name of the interstate commerce clause. But I don't see how the federal gov't can be removed from domestic issues completely. There needs to be an arbiter when various state laws conflict. That is, unless I haven't thought of something.

 

I oppose a constitutional convention. It's better to start fresh without the existing polity.

 

It was a constitutional convention that tossed the Articles of Confederation and replaced it with the current constitution.

 

Accountable,

You are really very smart. Smart enough to realize that a new constitutional convention would be organized for the purpose of amending the present US Constitution, not to revoke it in it's entirety.

 

As was the first one.

I know that the corporate-sponsored politicians would do anything in their considerable power to keep what they've got. I don't think you & I are in disagreement here except maybe in semantics.

I don't expect to change the world. At best, this thread can get people thinking, and maybe one person acting. But at least that's one.

 

The delegates to such a constitutional convention would end up being dominated by conventional special interests. That won't work for me. The delegates would have to be chosen at random from the phone book in Cincinnati or some other random procedure.

 

I like it so far.

 

Get rid of the Electoral college and institute IRV for all elections.

 

IRV? I'm not familiar.
I agree the electoral college is pointless, especially since The Party has a stranglehold on it. If IRV is a popular vote, would you go by state or wholly popular vote? If by state, then wouldn't that effectively disenfranchise the less populous states?

 

Would we really be worse off if we restored our original Constitution and Bill of Rights?

 

For the most part, no. We'd be worlds better off if we could get Washington to honor the Constitution, amendments or no.