PDA

View Full Version : Pros and Cons of a Constitutional Convention




Michael Landon
12-19-2010, 10:41 AM
I received the following e-mail and was wondering what everyone's views on a proposed Constitutional Convention are.

E-mail -

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention. This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.

This is an idea that we should address. For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that passed.. in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three
days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: "Congress shall
make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not
apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall
make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does
not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."

You are one of my 20.

Please cut and paste to prevent forward clutter and send on.


I look forward to the discussion.

- ML

tangent4ronpaul
12-19-2010, 11:00 AM
I could be wrong here, but I believe they are very dangerous. We've had past discussions about it here. The way I understand it working is that if there is enough support for a concon, say specifically to address term limits, it goes forward. The problem is that they don't have to even bring up term limits and the entire Constitution is up for grabs. That would be a bad thing.

Or maybe what I've heard is wrong and disinformation because a concon would actually be a good thing and TPTB don't want us to have one...

A change to take back power? or a chance to loose rights - which is it?

-t

QueenB4Liberty
12-19-2010, 11:03 AM
I think it really has to do with who goes to the ConCon, it could be a great thing if the whole thing was made up of people like us. But then again the ConCon could be made up of people like Sarah Palin or Barack Obama, not such a good thing.

TNforPaul45
12-19-2010, 11:10 AM
We already have a great Constitution, not perfect, but great. Our problem is that we do not follow the one we have, not that we need a new one.

tangent4ronpaul
12-19-2010, 11:17 AM
We already have a great Constitution, not perfect, but great. Our problem is that we do not follow the one we have, not that we need a new one.

It could use tweaking. Specifically consequences for the government if they violate it, clarification that the "general welfare clause" is preamble and not license to do whatever they want, strict limits on the commerce clause, term limits, going after lobbyists as they are supposed to represent the people - corporations are not the people, and yeah that whole "corporate person hood" thing.

-t

QueenB4Liberty
12-19-2010, 11:28 AM
It could use tweaking. Specifically consequences for the government if they violate it, clarification that the "general welfare clause" is preamble and not license to do whatever they want, strict limits on the commerce clause, term limits, going after lobbyists as they are supposed to represent the people - corporations are not the people, and yeah that whole "corporate person hood" thing.

-t'

Exactly. The GWC and the CC need to be more specific.

sailingaway
12-19-2010, 11:30 AM
I can see changes that would be beneficial, but I don't think the people today's politicians would appoint would make it better, but worse. Look at the bills they pass.

TNforPaul45
12-19-2010, 11:40 AM
I admit, there are some changes that we could make that the Founders just weren't devious enough to think of. Some say it takes a criminal to think like a criminal and this is true to some extent. The majority of the Founders were just such upright and straightforward men that they could only base the evils that they bulwarked against in the constitution on the evils that they knew up and until the point of their day. They couldn't imagine all the loopholes and interpretive doorways that would come in our time. They suffered from that which all men do: Assumption of common knowledge.

Their hope for the innovativeness and brilliance of the American experiment is the same hope that opened the doorway to the idiocy that we see today.

It would take a majorly virtuous society in order to have the safety needed to have a ConCon that would preserve what we have now and add what we really need. But if we had a virtuous society, then we wouldn't need a ConCon, would we? It's a Catch-22 of epic proportions, I admit.

I cannot currently think of a way to fix what ails us, other than re-educating society back up to a point where they can wholly think of these issues.

RM918
12-19-2010, 11:43 AM
Yeah. Then the Constitution would end up being 2,000 pages and grant imperium to Obama/Romney.

TheTyke
12-19-2010, 11:48 AM
There is no need... amendments can be passed without opening up that whole can of worms.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op-6ZHh7hag

Keith and stuff
12-19-2010, 03:11 PM
Why create another document that isn't followed? The US Constitution wasn't followed last year, 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 150 years ago. A Con-Con would be a waste of time. Vote with your feet. Team up with like minded people.

nobody's_hero
12-19-2010, 11:04 PM
We need more checks and balances. (or at least, to get back some that we once had, like having U.S. Senators elected by state reps, and the 16th needs to be abolished so we can go back to a proportionate taxation system whereby the states cut a check to the Federal government instead of the Federal government coming to the people directly and eating our paychecks before they're even issued to us on payday).

But we'd have to get more people like Gunny into the state legislatures.

Eventually, I think we'll have to have an Article 5 Convention. I don't see the U.S. Congress changing any time soon, and by the time it does change, the whole system will have collapsed, Constitution and all, so I don't think we have much to lose by going the state-route (but preparing first).

muzzled dogg
12-19-2010, 11:05 PM
massachusetts would send barney frank

Zippyjuan
12-20-2010, 03:34 AM
I don't see one being called very likely but anyhow, a Constitutional Convention can do one thing- propose amendments. The Constitution says nothing about who goes to the convention- states could select their own representatives and those would likely be current polititians like their senators, congressmen or governors. It would be up to them to decide if it would be held to cover just one issue (say a balanced budget amendment- the last time an attempt at a ConCon was made) or if it would be opened up to more issues. The big thing is as I said, only to PROPOSE any amendments. All amendment proposals would then have to be ratified by three fourths of the states before they could take effect. Getting three fourths of the states to agree on any issue is difficult- which is how the founders of the Constitution wanted it. They set the standard for altering the Constitution at a high level. We complain (as we have the right to do so) but it is really a quite remarkable document they created over 200 years ago. To quote Ben Franklin on it:

"There are several parts of this Constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them. ... I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. ... It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies..."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)

fisharmor
12-20-2010, 07:18 AM
Consider:
There already was a constitutional convention in this country, in 1787, and the result was to completely trash the existing system and put our current system in place.


Why create another document that isn't followed? The US Constitution wasn't followed last year, 50 years ago, 100 years ago or 150 years ago. A Con-Con would be a waste of time. Vote with your feet. Team up with like minded people.

Consider also: non-constitutionists think so little of constitutions in general that they assert that we're following it when we're clearly not, and pro-constitutionists fully realize that we're not following it.

So, given that it has only been used to toss the existing system in the dumpster,
and given that few have any particular devotion to the existing system,
and given that of the few who care, many think the whole thing is an exercise in futility because the first group is just going to ignore what comes out of convention and reinstitute an oligarchy anyway,
Then what exactly is the point of a ConCon?

I suppose it's possible for something positive to happen out of it, but the deck is kind of stacked against us.
I'm with Keith - we need to organize locally. The logical conclusion to that eventually is the dirty S word, though, so it would make more sense to me to forward emails to people explaining that secession has nothing to do with racism (and never did to begin with) and that we ought to be looking in that direction instead.

fisharmor
12-20-2010, 07:20 AM
I don't see one being called very likely but anyhow, a Constitutional Convention can do one thing- propose amendments.

Like this, maybe....

Ammendment 28: the Constitution of the United States of America adopted 1787 is hereby repealed, to be replaced with a new constitution in convention at X on Y date.


That's all it takes.

LibertyMage
12-20-2010, 08:34 AM
Constitutional conventions waste time and political energy.

cindy25
12-20-2010, 08:54 AM
they would end up abolishing the Senate.

a con con would not be good but there is a need for several amendments.

erowe1
12-20-2010, 02:25 PM
Are ideas propagated by chain emails really worthy of serious discussion?

Zippyjuan
12-20-2010, 02:35 PM
Like this, maybe....

Ammendment 28: the Constitution of the United States of America adopted 1787 is hereby repealed, to be replaced with a new constitution in convention at X on Y date.


That's all it takes.

IF it were later agreed to by three fourths of the states- yes, that could happen. Likely such an amendment would be aproved? No.

fisharmor
12-20-2010, 02:49 PM
IF it were later agreed to by three fourths of the states- yes, that could happen. Likely such an amendment would be aproved? No.

In the country that has people sitting on foreign soil rotting in prison without formal charges?
The one that puts out hits on foreigners because they made fedgov look bad?
The one that already adopted multiple amendments without following procedure?
The one that split Virginia despite the fact that Virginia's constitution explicitly forbids such a thing?

Nobody gives a shit what the federal or any other constitution says. The media would get a hold of it, give us the Pelosi version that the constitution says we can do anything we have political power to do, feed that to the masses, and then it's game over.

Yes, you're right. As a matter of procedure, 3/4 of the states need to ratify it.
Nobody cares.
In particular, the people who would be running the ConCon don't care.

If we could first convince 51% of the population that things that are written down and agreed on actually matter and are a reasonable way to run a society, then I'd be full-bore in favor of it.

ChaosControl
12-20-2010, 03:19 PM
I want a Constitutional Convention to remove the constitution and put in place a new articles of confederation.

Matt Collins
01-26-2011, 08:03 PM
The John Birch Society (JBS) has just released a new 12-minute video on YouTube, "Beware of Con-Cons: State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention."





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMg_yGlcUX4