Let's have a Constitutional Convention

Discussion in 'Campaign & Political Reform' started by Accountable, Jul 4, 2011.

  1. perdidochas

    perdidochas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2008
    Messages:
    27,293
    Likes Received:
    4,346
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  2. eric1

    eric1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2012
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  3. septimine

    septimine New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  4. alexviseu

    alexviseu Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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/
     
  5. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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
     
  6. Bill Walker

    Bill Walker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  8. twinkyfl1

    twinkyfl1 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  10. Bill Walker

    Bill Walker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for your thoughtful post.

    I have not claimed what you state, but merely claim that we could not do a better job today, than our Founding Fathers did over two hundred years ago.

    I read some of the site you mention, but find it somewhat disingenous in its claims. One statement is about over 700 applications from 49 States, but omits that it must be about the same issue from 34 States. In other words, if there were even 1000 applications from all fifty States about 1000 different things, it should not trigger a call for a convention. I would think that site should do a better job citing the issues and how many States submitted applications for that same issue. I did notice that the issue of direct election of senators was submitted by many States and was subsequently ratified and incorporated into our federal Constitution. The same is not necessaryly true of many of the other applications.

    From one perspective, it may merely be that the Anti-federalists were less optimistic about men being able to be better Angels on Earth who have no need for the expense of Government, when they insisted on a Bill of Rights. In my opinion, the 13th Amendment is unnecessary and could have been dealt with through a federal doctrine. The issues of equal protection, income tax and equal suffrage was not a defect in our Constitution, but a defect in our moral character since there is no basis to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States, and there was a power to tax individuals after the first census or enumeration.
     
  12. Bill Walker

    Bill Walker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First of all, I will accept that while you wrote something in a manner that did not communicate what you intended, what you now state was your intention. This then neatly leads into my main response. Unlike your statement, the Supreme Court (as well as the Congress itself) does not agree with your statement that applications "must be about the same issue from 34 States." The court ruled in US. v Sprague (1931) that there was no "interpolation, rules of construction or ADDITION" permitted in Article V. Thus, as Article V DOES NOT requires the states submit an application on the same issue, only that they apply in a certain numeric ratio, your interpretation which requires not only addition by adding words that are not in the text but a rule of construction, is entirely incorrect.

    However don't take my word for it. You say you revere the Founders and that they couldn't do a better job. I assume therefore you accept the job they did was correct especially regarding the original text of the Constitution. So I'm sending you a link to an article I wrote. Please go to the end of the article and read the part about James Kenneth Rogers which is where, I assume, you picked up the erroneous idea that states can propose amendments. Article V clearly only allows the states to apply for a convention call and ratify proposed amendments from the two bodies authorized to do so by the Constitution--Congress and a convention. The Founders expressly discussed this and rejected the idea of states proposing amendments. Rogers gave misinformation (and I'm being kind here in my statement) regarding what the public record says about this matter at the 1787 convention.

    So to answer you about the site. The reason there is no such compilation of applications by issue (and by the way there actually is) is because any issue contained in an application is for consideration by a convention, not Congress. Constitutionally Congress is only concerned with the numeric count of applying states. You can also check the senate website and go to their interpretation of Article V in the part about the Constitution and read that if you don't believe me and the article. Anyway, as to the article be sure to read p.430 as shown in the link in the article and then read the text directly below it. Read it several times if need be until you realize the Founders rejected same issue by the states expressly and deliberately.

    So unless you want to say the Founders got it wrong you're stuck with what they wrote, moved and implemented--a convention shall be called on the application to two thirds of the states and this was the purpose of the applications, NOT amendment proposal.

    The link to the article is: http://www.foavc.org/reference/file41.pdf
     
  13. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you actually claiming that our fifty States could submit fifty applications for fifty different topics and that it should trigger a call for a convention for an amendment?
     
  14. Bill Walker

    Bill Walker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You obviously do not read what I wrote. First of all as CLEARLY stated by Article V, it is a convention for proposing AMENDMENTS, not amendment. As to the rest of your statement I am not claiming anything other to point out that 49 states have submitted 748 applications on 34 different subjects. I am reporting information to you. All of this information is simply repeating official public record which you can independently verify at any large city library or law library you choose. That information states it is a numeric count of applying states and NOT same subject.

    For example, you can go to the annotated Constitution page of the United States Senate and read their interpretation of Article V. http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm#a5 . Or you can read the text by the Founders made in Congress where founders themselves stated Congress had no right of debate, committee or even a vote in connection with the calling of an Article V Convention. Obviously, for Congress to determine "same subject" requires all three yet the Founders who you say did such a good job obviously disagreed. General Annals of Congress 1 (J. Gales Ed.) Pg 00257 Yr 1789-VA-General Call for an Article V Convention (continued 259, 261) By the way if this link doesn't work go to the FOAVC website and use the link there on the list of applications by the states.

    You can go to state applications which call for a convention call based on a numeric count of applying states. http://foa5c.org/file.php/1/Amendments/071_cg_r_03369_1929_HL.JPG

    You can read the four Supreme Court decisions, all passed unanimously by the Supreme Court which repeat over and again the call is numeric and neither state legislatures, national legislature, federal courts or state courts have the right to change the terms set by the Constitution.

    I could continue with the fact Hamilton in Federalist 85 said a convention call was peremptory meaning there was no option on the part of Congress but also point out he based this statement on the mathematical properties of Article V.

    All this information refutes your assumption and is official public record. Indeed the policy of the United States government has never changed since the inception of this nation and is even repeated in the colonial times by opponents to the Constitution, that Article V means if two thirds of the state legislatures apply for a convention call (remember the motion made by Gerry) then Congress must call.

    Now instead of continuing providing you information I suggest the following: provide me your reference or references of public record, that is official government policy, court rulings, statements made in the 1787 convention or in the ratification debates following or any other such documents that back up your opinion. Because to be frank, that is all so far you have provided. Your opinion which without reference is meaningless when stacked up against the information I have provided you.

    I look forward to you providing the mountain of evidence you surely have but have simply withheld until you have been asked to provide it. You now have been asked. In poker this is known as the call. Let's see your hand.
     
  15. Bill Walker

    Bill Walker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh yes, I forgot one other point about your statement about the FOAVC site. The public record shows clearly and irrefutably that three issues, repeal of income tax, apportionment and balanced budget amendment have each received over two thirds applications by the states. Indeed repeal of federal income tax has had 39 states apply for it, one more than required for ratification. So, if your theory were correct and again I emphasize public record clearly discounts it, Congress is obligated to call even under your theory as the states have satisfied this bogus, false standard of application.

    The reason there has not been a convention call is not because the states have not applied but because Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and call the convention. Indeed, the opposition has grown so bold as to now have one of the two major parties assert officially that their members elected to office should refuse to obey the Constitution and call a convention even if the states do apply. In short the party in question now has a policy of vetoing the Constitution. The link to this is as follows. The first is to the page of the party, the second the actual resolution.

    http://www.gop.com/rnc_counsel/

    http://www.gop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Resolution_Opposing_a_Constitutional_Convention.pdf

    So it appears your position is now official party policy, that is, that party members can selectively obey what portions of the Constitution they agree with and ignore the rest. And of course, official party policy is only one step away from official government policy thus bringing up an interesting question: what will they veto next? Your right to own a gun, your sixth amendment rights, freedom of speech, right to vote... I think you get the idea.

    Now you support the government vetoing the Constitution and don't say you don't because this entire blog presents your opposition to that government obeying the terms of the Constitution. Fine. Now you can consider not the theory of what that means, but the actual fact that for the first time in United States history a major political party has officially rejected the Constitution. In other words you can contemplate not the theory of a government unbound by the Constitution but the reality of it.
     
  16. Bill Walker

    Bill Walker New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2011
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I've waited several days before adding this comment. Whoever Mr. Daniel Palos is I can state one thing for certain. Like all other opponents to a convention when called upon to prove their case they do exactly the same thing. Disappear. When you demand prove of their assertions, statements and so on or present irrefutable public record, they cannot and will not respond. The reason is simple. They don't have proof.

    Those of you who read this thread and are considering which side of the fence to take on this issue might bear this in mind. The opposition cannot prove their statements and therefore relies entirely on fear for support. Ask yourself one question: Do I really want to have this nation's constitutional policies decided on the basis of misinformation and fear?
     
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It may be that the several States merely lost interest in the political passions of the moment.

    I am not against following our supreme law of the land, I merely believe we tend to be more frivolous in modern times whenever a majority can reach a quorum.

    In my opinion, our Founding Fathers did such an excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land, that we should repeal everything after the Tenth Amendment as both less necessary and less proper than the wisdom already Ordained and Established by our Founding Fathers.
     

Share This Page