Modern Constitutional Convention and its Ramifications

[IAM]

On one hand I think a budget amendment to the Constitution would be a move in a positive direction for America but once a Constitutional Convention is called there are no limits to what can be deleted, added or changed. I don't trust American politicians to make healthy changes (for most people) in normal times but if there is a Constitutional Convention and we have another event similar to 911 then who knows what knee-jerk reaction we will get. When congress takes time to change the name of food in the cafeteria from French fries to Freedom fries it makes me wonder how stabile are these personalities.

FOX News article
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/

RT America video 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUhLCYzuLxQ

wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)

 

[gay_Aleks]

I wouldn't trust any American to make their own constitution.

 

[Core Imposter]

I am in opposition due the extent to which the people have changed and the way we have drifted away from the core of the constitution already.

Nothing good can come of it.

Edit: Its too late.

 

[Core Imposter]

OTOH, if you are talking about a red state Constitutional Convention we can do business.

 

[JollyRoger]

That bit failed in the 1860s.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Yes, and it had one of the weirdest amendments, according to which, uhh, you can't actually secede. It's a bit weird that the Constitution waited almost a century to fix that slight problem.

 

[Traitorfish]

I am in opposition due the extent to which the people have changed and the way we have drifted away from the core of the constitution already.

Nothing good can come of it.

You understand that the Constitutional Convention was a project of the Federalists, rights? The ones who thought "state's rights" was a big load of bollocks?

Historical illiteracy, plain and simple.

 

[useless]

Just a reminder that state's rights allowed for the existence of stuff like the Jim Crow laws

 

[Traitorfish]

Although it's also worth remembering that the federal government allowed stuff like the Fugitive Slave Act. It's not really that either states of federal government are more progressive than the other, only that the federal government has tended to be more progressive than most states over the course of the last century.

 

[Flying Pig]

Although it's also worth remembering that the federal government allowed stuff like the Fugitive Slave Act. It's not really that either states of federal government are more progressive than the other, only that the federal government has tended to be more progressive than most states over the course of the last century.

Though the Fugitive Slave Act was part of a rather large compromise intended on keeping slavery contained, and it was so poorly enforced in the North that its makers must have known what would happen as they were writing it.

 

[Traitorfish]

True, but it was poorly-enforced because Northern state laws prohibited slavery and the federal government wasn't really up for suppressing those laws in any systematic way, so we're back to the issue of neither federal government nor states being inherently more progressive or reactionary simply through the fact of their being the federal government or the states.

 

[useless]

I'm just pointing out that "state's rights" is sometimes a dogwhistle for much uglier things, not that the federal government is inherently more progressive (god knows it isn't)

 

[Berzerker]

aint no need for a convention, the politicians change the Constitution to their liking with little resistance already

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm just pointing out that "state's rights" is sometimes a dogwhistle for much uglier things, not that the federal government is inherently more progressive (god knows it isn't)

That's true enough. One wonders what they'd have to appeal to if "state's rights" were "restored". County's rights? Municipality's rights? Street's rights?

 

[IAM]

That's true enough. One wonders what they'd have to appeal to if "state's rights" were "restored". County's rights? Municipality's rights? Street's rights?

Maybe my gated community will secede.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-stat...-the-us/question-3317909/?link=ibaf&q=&esrc=s

 

[Antilogic]

I'd imagine any sort of modern constitutional convention would result in a deadlock, I can't imagine a two-thirds majority of either Congress/national delegates and a two-thirds majority of state governments backing any but the most superficial of changes.

That's true enough. One wonders what they'd have to appeal to if "state's rights" were "restored". County's rights? Municipality's rights? Street's rights?

All I know are those thieving jokers over at Main & Portland better knock the eff off.

 

[peter grimes]

Didn't the original vision of revision include a provision for decision every score of years?

 

[warpus]

No offense to the American founding fathers or their fans or whoever, but I think the American constitution would best be re-written from scratch. It seems sort of outdated in many respects.

Don't other countries do this sort of thing after their constitutions have been around for too long and they start becoming obsolete? Maybe I'm wrong. Then again in America people seem to put a lot of credence in the idea that the constitution is a "sacred" text, so I guess that probably wouldn't fly. Still, it seems like a very sensible idea.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Best if the American constitution is written by anyone but Americans.

 

[peter grimes]

I'd fully support a rewrite from scratch, assuming that the current elite interests are not able to influence the text.

As things stand today, I'm afraid the elite interests are the only ones that would make it into the final document, so I prefer we work at change from within.