Thread: Let's have a Constitutional Convention

Originally Posted by Accountable

We've never had one, but the Constitution allows for it. The last constitutional convention scrapped the entire Articles of Confederation and replaced it with a completely new government. I think it might be time we at least consider doing so again.

What would you have changed, if we wrote a new constitution?

For starters, I think we ought to have at least 2 people in the executive office. Maybe one specializing in domestic affairs & the other focused on the international.

Having both a senate and house is a waste when both are elected by the people. Maybe give the Supreme Court some more say in things by letting them appoint senators.

That's just to get the ball rolling. Anyone else?

Worst possible thing we could ever do is to have a new constitution. I don't trust the politicians of our time to legitimately do this.

I do think we should repeal the 17th amendment (state legislatures should go back to choosing the Senators), and we should add term limits to all offices--The House to 6 terms, the Senate to 2 terms.

Some sites for those interested in a Convention--

http://www.conconcon.org

http://www.callaconvention.org

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nation...alConvention06 autonomous regional government/diffusing the power of the Federal Reserve

I think the 17th amendment is a good start, but I think you have to absolutely lock down the government to a certain size. I think the biggest reason for the explosion of government regulation is that there's no constitutional limit to the size of government. There are some things the government is not supposed to do, but there's no constitutional amendment that declares that our government cannot grow past a certain size. So I would propose 2 amendments in addition to repealing the 17th. First, any increase in taxes cannot exceed the old rate + inflation without a vote of the people. The second is that the government is limited in budget to 20% or less of the total GDP. You want more, you have to amend the constitution.

I'm also supportive about having a constitutional convention. Money in politics are hurting the American people.

These guys seem to be pushing for it. I would advice anyone interested in Constitutional Conventions to check an actual movement that supports one: http://www.wolf-pac.com/

I don't believe we could do a better job today, than our Founding Fathers did over two hundred years ago; that is how good of a job they did at the Convention

It is good that you support an Article V Convention. Don't deny it. Your post clearly states you support what the Founders did 200 years ago meaning you support the Constitution "as is." That includes, of course, an Article V Convention. Thank you for your support.

Why bother; we couldn't do a better job today than our Founding Fathers did over two hundred years ago, even after a Space Race.

This seems like an awesome idea, now let's start turning it into a reality. That's if we have enough people who are into reality.

I don't believe we could do a better job than our Founding Fathers did at the Convention, when they intelligently designed our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Originally Posted by danielpalos

I don't believe we could do a better job than our Founding Fathers did at the Convention, when they intelligently designed our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.

You've said this statement in this thread several times and I think you deserve an answer. First, I must correct a couple of misstatements I read in this post. The Constitution DOES NOT allow for a "constitutional convention." It permits a "convention for proposing amendments....to THIS Constitution." Hence, all a convention can do is propose amendments. It is not authorized to write a new Constitution. If you study the 1787 Federal Convention (the official title of the convention) and the law it operated under you will discover that law DID allow for the convention of 1787 to do exactly what it did: make a proposed alteration to the Articles of Confederation. Just one, an alteration. That is what the committee (and that in fact was what it was) proposed and that is what the law allowed. There is a difference between amendment and alteration. Basically, the difference is an amendment does not allow for elimination of the object that is being amended while alteration does allow for the elimination of that object. Oh by the way the reason this entire subject is not theoretical is the fact the states have long since passed the threshold set by the Constitution cause Congress to call a convention. That document requires a call if 34 states submit 34 applications. The public record shows 49 states have submitted over 700 applications. You can read them at www.foavc.org

Now as to your comment. First of all as to "designing" our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land you are repeating yourself. The federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. They are not separate issues. It is because people today view the Constitution in this manner that there is issue. In any event, the fact is the Founders did an average and indeed I would argue, poor job in 1787. They created a document which didn't even last through ratification or less than a year before the one thing that was the reason for the convention existing at all was forced to be used in order for the Constitution to remain viable as law of the land--the amendment process.

So, in fact the Constitution was poorly designed because ten amendments had to be added immediately just for the nation to accept it. Indeed the public record shows that had those amendments not be put in place the Constitution would not have even been made law of the land--hardly a recommendation show intelligent design.

Now let's take a look what happened afterwards. Within less than a generation two major design flaws had to be corrected by amendment, state lawsuits filed across state lines meaning residents of one state could try a person of another state under the first state's laws of which that person was not subject to. Then came the issue of how to choose a president when an election got all fouled up. So there's 12 things they didn't design right.

Next came slavery something they avoided dealing with, equal protection under the law, income tax, women's right to vote, limiting the presidential term... You get the idea. All proving they did not intelligently design the Constitution as all these issues were left out and not addressed. In one case the omission cost some 750,000 American lives.

No you have the statement wrong. Others did a better job when they used the system designed by the Founders to correct current issues--the amendment process. It is the Constitution AS AMENDED that is what you so revere. Not the original Constitution which, as I've shown, was a completely inadequate document save for the fact it provided a means whereby it could address future issues as they appeared.

So when you say "we" can do a better job you are incorrect. It is directly intended we do a better job because the Founders didn't know what we face but they did allow we could do something about it. Hence, we can do a better job because we have the means to adjust our law of the land to deal with issues of today.