Let's have a Constitutional Convention

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

  1. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  2. John_Locke

    John_Locke New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?


    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...
     
  3. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    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.
     
  4. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    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?
     
  5. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you aware of the 27 amendments? Do you disagree with all of them?
     
  6. John_Locke

    John_Locke New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That would be an intriguing idea.

    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.

    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.)
     
  7. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.

    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.
     
  8. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

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

    John_Locke New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0

    That i would.

    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.)
     
  10. John_Locke

    John_Locke New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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).
     
  11. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The republicans seem to be fine with the "entitlement" spending known as our wars on abstractions, or corporate welfare; the only "entitlement" spending they seem to have a problem with is for We the People who can't afford to purchase tax loopholes large enough to drive a yacht through.
     
  12. John_Locke

    John_Locke New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thats a load of bull. the democrats AND the establishment republicans gave the biggest corporate welfare handout we've ever seen as a country in the TARP finance bill.

    They're not loopholes. They're supposed to be subsidies that lower the price of energy (ethanol and gasoline). However, the way they are structured (and with how energy inefficient ethanol is) its no longer necessary.

    entitlement spending is different from subsidies because subsidies are discretionary spending. Congress can change spending levels any year it wants.

    Meanwhile, welfare programs for the poor and the elderly are based on long-term entitlement formulas that result in sky-high costs (due to baby-boomer retirees). These true entitlement programs have long term negative effects on our government finances ($10-30 trillion unfunded benefits in the next several decades). Meanwhile, since our establishment politicians (BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS) have taken money from social security surplus every year, the trust fund is basically close to empty. As the program reaches permanent deficits in the next decade, it will only add to the growing list of welfare obligations as well as our pension crisis for federal workers (another $3-10 trillion).

    I personally oppose corporate subsidies, but turning this into a class war is exactly what the democrats want. If they get their way, we'll increase spending on entitlements (the more we spend, the more addicted many in our society to supporting them), cut a few corporate subsidies, and still continue to increase spending.

    The answer ultimately lies away from the suggestions of both the Democrat and Republican establishments. Eliminating subsidies are good because its not really a tax raise, its ending federal funding for those programs. However, we do need to cut entitlement spending, especially reform it (maybe look to the privatization proposals by Clinton and the Republicans in the 90s?)
     
  13. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's fine, but it doesn't answer the question ... unless you're advocating doing away with the amendments and returning to the original Constitution as written? I'd be willing to listen if you'd take the time.

    Agreed. both sides of The Party have their pet spending projects and neither seem willing to really cut each others' spending programs. The result is ever more spending, ever larger power grabs, and ever-growing government.
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Our wars on abstractions are also forms of entitlement spending. Why not end those forms of boondoggles and generational forms of theft during times of lowering taxes? While I can understand democrat reluctance due to union involvement, the republicans offer no such "compassion" regarding unions or the standard of living they can engender.
     
  15. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Repealing everything after our Bill of Rights would be ok as far as I am concerned since our Founding Fathers really did do that good of a job at the convention with out federal Constitution. In my opinion, all subsequent generations have done is simply waste paper.
     
  16. John_Locke

    John_Locke New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Republicans have continued to ask for a social security lockbox on the fund (to prevent your "generational theft"). They've also tried to reform Social Security into a system similar to a 401k, based on the market (privatization). Its been demonized so much by democrats that its now somehow equivalent to "taking away social security." The republicans continue to propose solutions but the democrats sit around doing nothing but criticizing the GOP proposals.

    We already have the highest condition of life in the world. Many of our poor have appliances like TVs Computers etc, as well as cars. They also have cell phones as well, funded by welfare payments and unemployment benefits. If we reduced union involvement, labor costs wouldn't be so high, and states like Detroit would be able to attract additional manufacturing jobs. Companies no longer think its cost effective to pay for unionization when they could outsource to third world countries (with no national min wage and no unions).
     
  17. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Why not enact public policy which better conforms to existing infrastructure and existing laws? Our elected representatives seem too eager to create more laws and regulations and almost make it seem like they are bucking for salary increases or bonuses based on the amount of legislation they can produce regardless of whether or not it actually promotes and provides for the general welfare and common defense.

    Our supreme law of the land and federal Constitution only applies to the US. Why compare us with less developed economies when discussing our own economy. You are welcome to apply your line of reasoning to a relevant form of special pleading concerning our own republic.

    Here is something to consider:

    Relative poverty within the US exists and should not be compared to less developed economies which do not have our federal Constitution.
     
  18. John_Locke

    John_Locke New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CEOS attended Business school, obatined MBAs, etc. they have more valauble skills than lower paid workers. Thats why they're paid more. Its the basis of the merit-based capitalism.

    Even if everyone's standard of living were increased 5 fold, there would always be some people that have less than others. THAT is your "relative poverty." Our Dec of Independence stated that All men were CREATED Equal. All men have the Right to PURSUE happiness. Our nation doesnt guarantee everyone is equal at the end of the day after the hard work is done, or that everyone reaches happiness, but we give everyone opportunites to aim for their goals. THAT is American values at work.
     
  19. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I am glad you stopped comparing us to less developed economies regarding relative poverty.
     
  20. BrianH

    BrianH New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2011
    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree, there will always be rich and there will always be poor. The problem we are entering into is the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, the gap between the two is widening and at some point it must lead to the collapse of our government. Look at any great civilization that had a fall, it happened when they lost balance and the country was basically made up entirely of rich or poor – no middle class, this is where we are heading. Since 1960 the cost of living has risen in the neighborhood of 10 times (1000%) while income has only gained less than 4 times (375%). We, as a people, need to bring common sense back into government, that basis laid down by our forefathers was amazing we need to get back to the intent of that government. They were wise enough to make our Constitution a “Living” document – let’s not kill it but let us look into making it stronger.
     
  21. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Stronger in what way? By "it" do you mean the Constitution or the government?
     
  22. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay, I'll go through each one and see if I agree. I really haven't done this before and don't know how many I'll agree on.

    This amendment actually trimmed some power the federal gov't had over the states. It was ratified only 4 years after the Bill of Rights, so it's not like the country had changed a tremendous amount. I tend to trust this amendment as an "Oops. We missed one" kind of thing, but I would have to study this one before giving an educated opinion.

    The Twelfth was written to compensate for political parties and make ruling easier. Since I disagree with both, I think dropping this amendment would be good.
     
  23. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All Men are created equal. Since this was proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence, slavery should not have been allowed into the country ... but it was and all of that is history. Slavery is so opposed to our current way of life, it is unlikely it will raise it's ugly head again. Even if it were, we have ample case law and verbiage opposed to slavery in the Constitution. This could be eliminated without fear that someone would make the idiotic conclusion that it was suddenly acceptable or legal.

    Sections 3 and 4 are obsolete, since all the people in question are now dead.


    Sections 1 and 2 are good and necessary, since section 1 settles the question of citizenship and section 2 makes it illegal to prohibit citizens from voting & does away with the 3/5 rule.
     
  24. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a mark of shame that we should even need to state this. It should be deleted because of the 14th and 19th amendments are sufficient. I would delete the 19th if the 14th didn't specifically apply to "male inhabitants."



    Delete this with prejudice as of yesterday! Article 1 Section 8 is sufficient.
     
  25. Accountable

    Accountable New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,737
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This one should go away. The Founders divided political power for a very good reason: so that no one entity would be able to obtain too much of it. Giving state legislators some power over the federal gov't is instrumental to that purpose.


    The 18th Amendment was already repealed.


    This is necessary only because of the phrasing in the 14th Amendment.


    This amendment is simple and necessary administrative housekeeping. It does more good than harm and improves the system. It should be kept.
     

Share This Page