Thread: Let's have a Constitutional Convention

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?

Originally Posted by Accountable

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.

Thats an interesting idea. Almost reminds me of the Roman Republic's system of consuls (replicated by Revolutionary France). The problem is, how would their election work? Or would we simply promote the Vice President?

Originally Posted by Accountable

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.

I have a proposal:

Repeal the 17th amendment. Allow state legislatures to appoint US senators. Then, hope that the states will enforce term limits to reduce the incumbent advantage of a large warchest of campaign money. Thats the way this country used to run when it was a republic, back in the day...

Originally Posted by John_Locke

Thats an interesting idea. Almost reminds me of the Roman Republic's system of consuls (replicated by Revolutionary France). The problem is, how would their election work? Or would we simply promote the Vice President?

Problem? Opportunity! We could split the responsibilities we could hold separate elections. We could stagger them as well. Just for numbers' sake, let's look at one 6-year term and done. Instead of VP, we could make the leader of the Senate the stand-in for one and leader of the House the stand-in for the other.

Originally Posted by John_Locke

I have a proposal:

Repeal the 17th amendment. Allow state legislatures to appoint US senators. Then, hope that the states will enforce term limits to reduce the incumbent advantage of a large warchest of campaign money. Thats the way this country used to run when it was a republic, back in the day...

We could cancel all the amendments and incorporate the ones that are still good into the new document. I hate the idea of career politicians, so of course I like your proposal. Increase the term between elections with no reelection.

Hey, maybe make a rule that politicians must sit out one term after serving, then they can run again if they wish.

I would love to figure out a way to prohibit partisan politics. Our politicians are loyal to The Party first, corporate sponsors second, and the constituents are lucky if they make it in the top five on the loyalty list.

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?

Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; there is nothing their posterity seems capable of doing better to date. Why try to fix what isn't broken only to replace it with something worse?

Originally Posted by danielpalos

Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; there is nothing their posterity seems capable of doing better to date. Why try to fix what isn't broken only to replace it with something worse?

Are you aware of the 27 amendments? Do you disagree with all of them?

Originally Posted by Accountable

Problem? Opportunity! We could split the responsibilities we could hold separate elections. We could stagger them as well. Just for numbers' sake, let's look at one 6-year term and done. Instead of VP, we could make the leader of the Senate the stand-in for one and leader of the House the stand-in for the other.

That would be an intriguing idea.

Originally Posted by Accountable

We could cancel all the amendments and incorporate the ones that are still good into the new document. I hate the idea of career politicians, so of course I like your proposal. Increase the term between elections with no reelection.

Hey, maybe make a rule that politicians must sit out one term after serving, then they can run again if they wish.

I dont know if we need to completely scrap the constitution. A constitutional convention to repeal amendments like the 17th is what I would support.

Originally Posted by Accountable

I would love to figure out a way to prohibit partisan politics. Our politicians are loyal to The Party first, corporate sponsors second, and the constituents are lucky if they make it in the top five on the loyalty list.

Thats why the founders didnt want political parties to exist. Its literally the formation of voting blocs in congress. If we listened to George Washington's farewell speech, we would have avoided many disasters.

1)No foreign alliances (avoid being drawn into cold war brushfire conflicts in Africa, Central America, Asia),
2)dangers of sectionalism (might have confronted slavery with a more legal and objective approach that would avoid civil war),
3) Dangers of Political parties (politicians arent bound to voting blocs in congress)
4)Importance of checks and balances and dangers of when a certain person or group seizes power. Thats why political parties are dangers. When one party controlls the executive and the legislative (it doesnt matter if its -R or -D), government waste and spending goes out of control.
5)Maintain diffusion of knowledge (people would continue to be informed on govt proceedings)
6)Importance of credit and paying off national debt. Don't take on debt except during wartime and pay it off afterwards. (we wouldnt be stuck in this entitlement mess that has $30+ trillion in unfunded liabilities.
7)Remain neutral (Wilson wouldnt have insisted on allowing americans to travel on armed british ships carrying ammunitions and gotten us into WWI. FDR wouldnt have started Lend-lease to Britain, FDR would have been more receptive to negotiating with Japan about the oil embargo (japan was on the verge of giving into concessions), and WWII might have been averted.)

Originally Posted by John_Locke

I dont know if we need to completely scrap the constitution. A constitutional convention to repeal amendments like the 17th is what I would support.

No need for a convention to do that. If we're going to pay to get a bunch of delegates in a room together, they may as well scrub the whole document. If you're not willing for that to happen, then you might want to re-think supporting a convention and opt for the more conventional approach of voting for a 28th Amendment repealing the 17th.

Originally Posted by John_Locke

Thats why the founders didnt want political parties to exist. Its literally the formation of voting blocs in congress. If we listened to George Washington's farewell speech, we would have avoided many disasters.

1)No foreign alliances (avoid being drawn into cold war brushfire conflicts in Africa, Central America, Asia),
2)dangers of sectionalism (might have confronted slavery with a more legal and objective approach that would avoid civil war),
3) Dangers of Political parties (politicians arent bound to voting blocs in congress)
4)Importance of checks and balances and dangers of when a certain person or group seizes power. Thats why political parties are dangers. When one party controlls the executive and the legislative (it doesnt matter if its -R or -D), government waste and spending goes out of control.
5)Maintain diffusion of knowledge (people would continue to be informed on govt proceedings)
6)Importance of credit and paying off national debt. Don't take on debt except during wartime and pay it off afterwards. (we wouldnt be stuck in this entitlement mess that has $30+ trillion in unfunded liabilities.
7)Remain neutral (Wilson wouldnt have insisted on allowing americans to travel on armed british ships carrying ammunitions and gotten us into WWI. FDR wouldnt have started Lend-lease to Britain, FDR would have been more receptive to negotiating with Japan about the oil embargo (japan was on the verge of giving into concessions), and WWII might have been averted.)

We wouldn't have stopped WWII but might have avoided being attacked ourselves.
I've said before that the one and sole reason this nation has become such a bastion of liberty is because of George Washington, no one else. Look at how many developing nations have chosen a leader of the people who succumbed to the lure of absolute power and became a tyrant. Even Americans were willing to vote Washington in as president for life and address him as Your Highness. How he was able to resist that kind of bait is beyond me, and strong testament to his incredible strength of character.

Originally Posted by Accountable

Are you aware of the 27 amendments? Do you disagree with all of them?

We didn't need anything other than our original Constitution and Bill of Rights, for clarification. It is not our Founding Fathers' fault that we were not as capable as their more patriotic generation.

Originally Posted by Accountable

No need for a convention to do that. If we're going to pay to get a bunch of delegates in a room together, they may as well scrub the whole document. If you're not willing for that to happen, then you might want to re-think supporting a convention and opt for the more conventional approach of voting for a 28th Amendment repealing the 17th.

That i would.

Originally Posted by Accountable

We wouldn't have stopped WWII but might have avoided being attacked ourselves.
I've said before that the one and sole reason this nation has become such a bastion of liberty is because of George Washington, no one else. Look at how many developing nations have chosen a leader of the people who succumbed to the lure of absolute power and became a tyrant. Even Americans were willing to vote Washington in as president for life and address him as Your Highness. How he was able to resist that kind of bait is beyond me, and strong testament to his incredible strength of character.

We wouldnt have been as involved in WWII. Thats what i meant. By taking harsh stances towards Japan while destroying the domestic isolationist policy by giving Britain benefits, FDR had us on the road to war from the start.

Exactly. And while our country had an experiment with tyranny with John Adams and the Alien and Sedition acts, the "revolution of 1800" and the peaceful transition of power to Jefferson sealed our republican values in stone (at least until the Progressives came along with their 17th amendment.)

Originally Posted by danielpalos

We didn't need anything other than our original Constitution and Bill of Rights, for clarification. It is not our Founding Fathers' fault that we were not as capable as their more patriotic generation.

They foresaw the country falling prey to the mob politics that influences our country these days. With the media gunning the masses forward with promises of free healthcare and prosperity, its no wonder republicans have been scared to cut entitlements. The founding fathers added protections against "mob rule" in the form of the Supreme Court and the US Senate, which was selected by state legislatures, and given more power than "the people's house" (House of Representatives). By passing the 17th amendment, we destroyed this last real bastion of mob rule (supreme court nomination process subjects justices to partisan politics). From then on, politicians have been able to sway the masses with false rhetoric with no factual foundation (look to FDR and LBJ).