gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
You mean the original Constitution wasn't made for the interest of the elites?
Modern Constitutional Convention and its Ramifications
- Thread starter IAM
- Start date
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,448
Its not possible to effect any effective political change at this point. We are too divided. We can't even agree on the definition of words. No one is going to put their personal interest aside for the good of the country.
I hate it but its going to be the same as its always been in human history. War and rebellion.
I hate it but its going to be the same as its always been in human history. War and rebellion.
Of course it was, I wasn't trying to argue otherwise.
Yeah, but they wrote the first one too.
No offense taken (at least by me). We basically refuse to upgrade our software for a couple centuries and keep patching it when serious problems arise.
I could see some sort of "populist" convention being a good way to draw attention to different proposed amendments. It doesn't have to be official or anything, it could be used to build support for a movement rather than an end itself.
*cough* Occupy *cough*
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
There's no employment problem in the USA, as there are protesters aplenty, which is a perfectly legit profession. Sometimes, you even get paid!
No you only think war and rebellion are the only way because that's what you want to happen. Stop being so damn bloodthirsty and try actually doing something meaningful to make the nation a better place to live.
Phrossack
Armored Fish and Armored Men
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,045
Countries only ought to exist to serve the people, not the other way around. And as it now is, virtually any political decision made in the U.S. will automatically anger at least half of the population. At any given time, a very large proportion of Americans aren't getting what they want, which defeats the purpose of democracy. Moreover, each individual's opinion means little, since there are well over 310,000,000 Americans now and in any case the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech, that corporations are people, and that they can donate unlimited amounts of money anonymously to any political candidate they choose. Now, all societies are imperfect and therefore failures, but large ones full of millions of people pulling in different directions are even worse.
An amicable divorce would be nice, but since the different groups of people involved often overlap with each other and are scattered across the entire country, this isn't possible, either.
My solution, inasmuch as it is a solution, is to either live a very secluded life in a wilderness or semi-wilderness area or to emigrate. I'm only an American through the accident of birth, not through choice, and I feel like a foreigner here and everywhere else, anyway, so I don't owe the country any loyalty.
Even for serious problems you are only patching very reluctantly. For most things the Supreme court has to create a workaround.
It was. But it was also broad enough to be inclusive enough for everyone. Can't count on that happening again.
Core Imposter
Felon
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 5,448
We are talking right past each other.
IAM
Emperor
If we are going to have a constitutional convention then I would like to see each amendment to the constitution brought up for a vote. It would take 75% of States to repel any existing amendment and 75% of states to add an amendment. Every state would have to vote within 24 months or forfeit all federal funds. Then for a period of 10 years everything would remain unchanged and we would have another vote. If any amendment got voted down both times it would be removed from the constitution and if any amendment got voted in both times then it would become a part of the constitution.
That would mean that it would be theoretically possible to pass amendments with 21% of the vote. If you're going to have a vote on constitutional changes you should add a population quota, like 66% (or whatever) of the states and 66% of the total vote.
And why limit yourself to the amendments? If you are doing a revision, do it right and do a revision of the entire text, not just the amendments.
IAM
Emperor
amendments are easier. mostly just a few sentences. rewriting the bulk would create too many issues.
I have not done the math about the 21% quote but assuming it's true I'm a big States rights guy so 75% of States is still OK to me.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
IAM
Emperor
A budget amendment would force the government to balance it's budget. No more uncontrolled spending. Of course honestly it's already to late for that. The trillions we are in debt and unfunded mandates like Social Security. Not only is the ship sinking but the water is already over the deck.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Except that the federal budget isn't like your home budget where balance must be achieved; the Feds got to care about people like you and me so that they don't starve out if something goes totally wrong.
I think I understand that point in the abstract (that debt doesn't mean the same to a government as to a household) but can someone like Cutlass explain (or direct me to an explanation) of precisely how and why it differs?
Similar threads
