Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
redshadowz, i understand where you are wanting to go, and i understand what you think might happen, but the reality is that if a constitutional convention was called, we would be losing our rights as citizens. what you are forgetting is that back when the constitution was first written, there were few lawyers in the convention. if one were to happen today, there would be a TON of lawyers, and with all the legalese language, it would be easy to write out every constitutional right we as citizens have, and you can bet that the supreme court would uphold the eradication of our rights because of the legalese.
our current constitution is a remarkable document, and it covers just about everything that needs to be covered. and what it doesnt cover, the founding father put in the means to amend the constitution so that it does cover things they didnt think of, or were not around in their days.
redshadowz, i understand where you are wanting to go, and i understand what you think might happen, but the reality is that if a constitutional convention was called, we would be losing our rights as citizens. what you are forgetting is that back when the constitution was first written, there were few lawyers in the convention. if one were to happen today, there would be a TON of lawyers, and with all the legalese language, it would be easy to write out every constitutional right we as citizens have, and you can bet that the supreme court would uphold the eradication of our rights because of the legalese.
our current constitution is a remarkable document, and it covers just about everything that needs to be covered. and what it doesnt cover, the founding father put in the means to amend the constitution so that it does cover things they didnt think of, or were not around in their days.
That argument simply doesn't stand up to any logic. Whether or not there are lawyers or not, isn't a real issue. The lawyers will simply be there to make sure the constitution cannot be misconstrued in any way.
Every single state would have its own lawyers and experts, who would make sure the new constitution protected their own interests and citizens. And there is no way that 3/4ths of the states are going to strip away freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gun rights, or anything else that already protects us. Those rights would simply be clarified so that they couldn't be taken away in the future by activist judges, or handed over to the states.
Look, not only would the delegates to the convention have to agree on the new constitution, but 3/4ths of the states, and thus the people in those states, would also have to approve of the new constitution. Why in the world would a majority of the people in all of the states agree to a restriction of our rights? It simply doesn't stand up to any logic.
The worst-case scenario in regards to rights, is that the federal government will be extremely limited, and most issues will be turned over to the states themselves. Which is also the best-case scenario.
This whole idea that "lawyers are going to write wording that will confuse the people, so they won't realize they are voting their rights away" is simply ridiculous. There will be plenty of people around to explain what each provision means, and the people will have a vested interest in making sure what they get is what they want.
It seems to me that our constitution seems to create more questions than answers. And those questions are only capable of being resolved by the Supreme Court, and many times those decisions are unsatisfactory for the vast majority of American citizens(IE Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, McDonald v. Chicago, etc).
It seems to me that the best way to settle the questions in regards to the constitution and federal authority, is to just have the states come together and draft a new constitution, which could address and clarify the role of the federal government and the role of the states.
Who would object, and why? I mean, worst-case scenario, we just keep what we already have.
I would have loved your idea 40 years ago. 'Course, 40 years ago we didn't need it.
I'm with you in theory, but I agree with those pointing out that today's result would be anything but what you seek. Sadly, I think today's America is too far gone to fix.
I would have loved your idea 40 years ago. 'Course, 40 years ago we didn't need it.
I'm with you in theory, but I agree with those pointing out that today's result would be anything but what you seek. Sadly, I think today's America is too far gone to fix.
Where's the new "new world"?
A constitution is an outline of the powers and limits of the federal government. And as I said before, a new constitution would require at least 3/4ths of the people/states in this country to agree on those powers and limitations.
With that said, if there was a new constitution, what do you think it would look like?
Look, my state of Oklahoma has 77 counties, and in both 2008 and 2012, all 77 counties voted for the Republican, and it wasn't even close.
If states like Oklahoma and Utah have to agree with California and New York on a power handed to the federal government through the new constitution. What kinds of powers will Oklahoma and Utah agree to grant the federal government?
Think Oklahoma is going for go for gay marriage? Abortion? Obamacare? I don't even think Oklahoma would support federal support of food stamps and other social programs. And Oklahoma definitely wouldn't agree on the federal government totally having control over immigration like it does now(neither would Arizona for that matter, and many other states).
In my opinion, what would happen is that once the delegates of the states got to the convention, there would be absolute deadlock. The states wouldn't be able to agree on much of anything. And so if the states were forced to produce something from the convention, the only thing that they could possibly agree on, would be something reminiscent of "states rights", through total decentralization of power from the federal government. It would be the only way each state could walk away from the convention with protections for their states own interests.
In reality, a convention could polarize this country to such an extent, that the country could end up being torn apart.
As the people will finally feel like they have an opportunity to change the system to be a reflection of their own views and values. They simply won't be able to tolerate a constitution that is miles away from what they believe it should be.
I think the prospect of a constitutional convention could present an opportunity to make some real positive changes that have been needed for some time, but to be effective it would need to be approached without the partisan desire to see liberal/conservative values implemented at the constitutional level (which would seem a pretty difficult thing to do in the current political climate). Still, I do think there are probably a number of potential amendments that might meet that criteria. How about:
1. Term limits
2. Campaign finance and lobbying reform - to be effective it would probably have to be pretty heavy-handed as those with power/money will use any possible avenue to exert their influence. Perhaps something along the lines of placing a maximum yearly amount a person/organization can contribute to any endeavor intended to influence (say 5% of the median personal income according to the last census).
3. Random assignment of membership in congressional committees for every new session
4. No issue affecting the general populace should ever be decided on a primary ballot in states with closed primaries
5. Eliminating 5th amendment protection for government employees (and subcontractors) if the question is related to their official duties and also allowing selective memory impairment to be considered when determining guilt/innocence in the same situation. I can't tell you how sick it makes me to see "public servants" of any political persuasion suddenly not being able to remember anything when under oath in a congressional or criminal investigation related to their jobs.
6. A federal version of the sunshine laws and greatly limiting the power to invoke the state secrets privilege (perhaps have a randomly selected state judge make the determination rather than the current method)
7. I would change the makeup of congress and the method of their election to allow for more proportional representation in one of the houses. Something along the lines of reducing the number of people in the House of Representatives to 400, but keeping it otherwise unchanged. However, increase the number of senators by 100, make their election regional rather than state-based, and the ballot of the senate should involve a list of parties to be ranked by order of preference. I'm not sure that's really the best way to go about it, just spitballing.
8. Get rid of the electoral college
9. Ending the ability to use eminent domain for private interests
10. Reforming the way prosecutions are handled with less emphasis on simply forcing a plea bargain. <- Not sure how to actually do this, but the current system trumping up charges during pretrial doesn't work too well if you happen to actually be innocent.
11. No copyright, patent, or trade secret protection may extend more than 25 years (as it was in the original Constitution). Considering the way mass production has made profiting on ingenuity far quicker and larger-scale than our founders could have possibly imagined, there is simply no excuse for these protections to have lengthened so much. It is amazing to think of the additional innovations lost because of this problem.
12. I thought about a balanced budget amendment, but that seemed a bit too heavy-handed. It is not necessarily a bad thing for the government to have the ability to go into debt during times of war or doing so for changes to large scale governmental programs, but something certainly needs to be done about the fact that its always in the red. <- Some type of middle ground is needed
That would be my list at Constitutional Convention 2013
I think the prospect of a constitutional convention could present an opportunity to make some real positive changes that have been needed for some time, but to be effective it would need to be approached without the partisan desire to see liberal/conservative values implemented at the constitutional level (which would seem a pretty difficult thing to do in the current political climate). Still, I do think there are probably a number of potential amendments that might meet that criteria.
I like some of your ideas, but some are just impossible...
Quote:
7. I would change the makeup of congress and the method of their election to allow for more proportional representation in one of the houses. Something along the lines of reducing the number of people in the House of Representatives to 400, but keeping it otherwise unchanged. However, increase the number of senators by 100, make their election regional rather than state-based, and the ballot of the senate should involve a list of parties to be ranked by order of preference. I'm not sure that's really the best way to go about it, just spitballing.
8. Get rid of the electoral college
Neither of these things will happen. Because it won't be the individual people directly voting for the constitution, it will effectively be the states voting. The people will rally behind their state, and will want to protect its general representation in the federal government. The small states and their people simply aren't going to voluntarily will themselves into total irrelevance. And regional states, such as say, New Hampshire and Massachusetts simply aren't going to be OK with having some disproportionate regional seat that may or not even give their state an actual representative.
I just don't see how you can get rid of the electoral college. And as for voting, I would like to totally revamp the election system. I personally would be in favor of "instant-runoff voting", and a single six-year term for the president.
I'm not a fan of the parliamentary system, and don't think it would work in this country. IRV elections are the only voting system which could realistically allow more than two political parties, but isn't a parliamentary system, and wouldn't require people to vote more than once.
You continue to miss the fact that the states are the worst anachronism underlying the Constitution.
Any new Constitution must remove the states as anything other than figure heads.
You simply cannot establish a fair system with Texas and California assigned the same representation as Rhode Island or Wyoming.
That is why you will never get a new Constitution except by starting from ground zero. You would otherwise have to ge a 3/4 vote from a big portion of the problem. Not going to happen.
You guys are objecting to my proposal, while agreeing with the basic premise of what I'm trying to accomplish.
The constitution may seem clear, but obviously the wording is simply too vague, and can be misconstrued to mean whatever the court wants it to mean. There must be a way to recreate the constitution where it is basically a bullet-proof contract that can only mean one thing.
Moreover, I was arguing that we need a convention to create a new constitution. Because our constitution, is becoming more and more a subject of disagreement and division.
I believe the best thing that could possibly happen in this country, would be to draft a new constitution, that would need to be ratified by the states, just as our previous constitution was. That way we can settle all the current issues that plague this country, without having to turn them over to unelected, life-termed Supreme court judges.
He's right, even if you disagree with his political opinions.
The only thing our government has ever seemed to do is to use the Constitution as an excuse to derive even more power.
Not that I think our founding fathers had any altruistic motives in writing the document. They were just as corrupt as our current leaders.
It seems to me that the best way to settle the questions in regards to the constitution and federal authority, is to just have the states come together and draft a new constitution, which could address and clarify the role of the federal government and the role of the states.
Who would object, and why? I mean, worst-case scenario, we just keep what we already have.
What made the original Constitution possible was that it was written without the knowledge of the Congress, the proceedings were conducted in secret, there were no leaks or political grandstanding. And while there certainly were rivalries, competing political interest, the delegates were wise intelligent men who understood theories of governance and most importantly the art of political compromise.
By the way, the original constitution was 6 pages long. By comparison the EU Constitution is 400 pages.
It seems to me that our constitution seems to create more questions than answers. And those questions are only capable of being resolved by the Supreme Court, and many times those decisions are unsatisfactory for the vast majority of American citizens(IE Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, McDonald v. Chicago, etc).
No we don't. We have a Constitution. It's just not the Constitution the foot stompers, whiners, and finger-shakers want. Three branches of government that uses checks and balances. Works great.
Just not for the people who are mad that their side lost and are now looking around for a way to impose what they want on everyone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
