A Constitutional Convention is Needed

[candycorn]

A Constitutional Convention is Needed

No, it isn't.

Totally agree, too few citizens vote. What we need in the macro more than any one other thing is MUCH more involvement of the citizenry in the government...both as voters and as candidates.

 

[Katzndogz]

We could have even more ignorant voters voting. That will help.

 

[Truthmatters]

such a distain for democracy

 

[nodoginnafight]

The U.S. Constitution has been modified 17 times. If you want to modify it, knock yourself out. Just do it by the rules.

Good luck

 

[Truthmatters]

hell they cant win elections without cheating.

they dont know what fair is

 

[g5000]

I count 51 General Calls for an Article V Convention.

10 were made by Wisconsin.

3 each were made by Wyoming and Louisiana.

2 each by Tennessee, Iowa, Georgia, Virginia.

There are more repeats, but those are enough to show that 34 states have not made a General Call for an Article V Convention.

So you're saying that because a state provided more information than was necessary nullifies that request? Really? How do you square that with your analytical thinking?

34 states are required. Less than 34 have made a General Call for an Article V Convention.

Simple math.

One state asking more than once does make up the difference.

 

[g5000]

Still waiting for the Opening Poster to tell us what amendments he wants to make to the Constitution.

 

[nodoginnafight]

One state asking more than once does make up the difference.

OK - THAT was funny.

 

[g5000]

An Article 5 Amendment Convention has already been requested by every State in the Union, Congress has ignored them, why do you think that will change? Here's a link to the request, check it out.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Presto! You have a constitutional convention.

What amendments do you want made?

 

[percysunshine]

Why would anyone trust todays government to ammend the Constitution anyway? They might propose tasering baby seals for all we know.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A Constitutional Convention is Needed

No, it isn't.

Your brilliant reasoning has won me over

 

[nodoginnafight]

So far, it seems to me is that the complaint is that the Constitution doesn't say what OP wants it to say (or at the very least he finds his intepretation to be a minority interpretation) so he wants it re-written to reflect what HE wants.

No problem.

Get 2/3 and your wish comes true.

 

[jwoodie]

"No per capita increase in any federal expenditure shall occur in any fiscal year where total federal revenues are not projected to equal or exceed total federal expenditures. New expenditures may only be authorized if fully offset by reductions in existing expenditures"

 

[percysunshine]

Ok, try on this;

Constitutional amendment to limit Senators to three terms.

To many old, corrupt and senile farts in that job. I could see an argument for two terms, but not four.

 

[candycorn]

We could have even more ignorant voters voting. That will help.

More ignorance may ensure a GOP resurgence.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There are certain areas where a broad consensus exits for the legitimate exercise of federal power. However, these have long been exceeded by political interest groups who have realized that they can exert their will on the entire nation by targeting specific Congressional elections with huge outside contributions. This may be the best argument for public financing of these elections.

Political interest groups. Partisan interest groups. Business interest groups. Social issues interest groups. Religious interest groups. Ethnic interest groups. Lifestyle interest groups. and more...

I have always argued that Madison's 'factions' argument did not really address factions as being political parties, which as we know them usually contain a wide selection of interest groups. Parties have historically addressed issues affecting the interests and rights of the community as a whole.

Having political parties does not make the nation a partisan nation, what makes the nation very partisan is when one party or more becomes narrow in focus and demonizes all others as enemies or unAmerican.

No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community.

Madison argued that a strong, big republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics—for instance, the individual states.

Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject.

Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9; it is titled, "The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection". The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution.

Jurists have frequently read No. 10 to mean that the Founding Fathers did not intend the United States government to be partisan. - wikipedia

So is a convention needed? Only if one first agrees the Constitution is either not adequate for the 21st century, or it is somehow broken and needs fixing -- for if the Constitution is perfect or not broken, it needs no tampering. Only issue is the public needs to be re-educated, as is done with authoritarian and fascist principles.

Before one says a constitutional convention needs to be called, and expect a majority of sane and rational people to follow, one must first state reasonable and rational arguments for why. This thread's OP did not do that. It went off the ideological cliff with nothing but narrow partisan attacks on others, not the Constitution itself.

The OP is a prime example of what Madison warned against. The OP would have traction in a small republic or an individual state (think latest Wisconson idiocy), but not so easily in a large republic as ours (federal versus state and local)

The Constitution is so difficult to amend in order to protect the majority from a narrow partisan minority like that the OP represents so well, bent on destroying the national polity

---

Take our country back, from the Constitution

 

[g5000]

Based on the total lack of concrete articulations about what amendments are desired, I have a sneaking suspicion I hit a little too close to the truth in post #3.

 

[percysunshine]

Based on the total lack of concrete articulations about what amendments are desired, I have a sneaking suspicion I hit a little too close to the truth in post #3.

So where do you sit on limiting the terms of Senators? Some of your favorites might have to go.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Based on the total lack of concrete articulations about what amendments are desired, I have a sneaking suspicion I hit a little too close to the truth in post #3.

So where do you sit on limiting the terms of Senators? Some of your favorites might have to go.

Limiting the terms of Congress? First you'd have to call a convention and who would you nominate to do the bidding?

There are more than one way to call a constitutional convention, why anyone here would seriously discuss leaving it up to the Congress is why USMB is

Congress has a popularity rating in the toilet with the GOP and the Democrats

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay people, let's stop and think here.

More than 50% of voters elected Barack Obama in 2008 despite the fact that he was probably the most unqualified person to be President that we have ever elected. Barack Obama is most antithesis to everything our Founders beliebved.

More than 50% of voters re-elected Barack Obama in 2012 despite the fact that most Americans were not happy with the economy or many of Obama's policies.

Do you really want to entrust this same electorate with the ability to completely scrap the U.S. Constitution and replace it with something that would more closely resemble the Communist Manifesto rather than what the Founders gave us?

That is exactly what could happen in a Constitutional Convention.