A Constitutional Convention is Needed

[Procrustes Stretched]

Here is where the kooks hang out:
No More 2-Day WorkweeksCongress should work 5 days a week, not 2. Agree? Sign the petition. NoLabels.org

Read more at U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution


U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution
Critic: 'This is a horrible time to try such a crazy scheme'
Published: 12/12/2008 at 12:25 AM
Read more at U.S. now only 2 states away from rewriting Constitution

 

[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.

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

Rush Limbaugh?

Just kidding. Would you agree that it would be a good idea, regardless of whether or not it was possible?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

go back to drinking Coffee. that is not how it would work. The 'American people' you so despise would not be writing anything at a con con

 

[nodoginnafight]

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

Pretty nice and well-thought-out post. I would just take issue with one sentence.

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

I would argue that the difficulty in amending the Constitution actually protects the minority from the whims of a slim majority.

 

[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.

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

Who are my favorite Senators? Hmmmm...oh, that's right. None of them.

I believe a simple ban on tax expenditures would go a long way toward eliminating any perceived need for both campaign finance reform and term limits.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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?

Rush Limbaugh?

Just kidding. Would you agree that it would be a good idea, regardless of whether or not it was possible?

Right now, It is possible, if not probable. Do I agree with what? The OP was a strictly partisan attack.
Lay out a reasonable and rational argument for why...and then it makes sense to agree or not.

 

[percysunshine]

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

Rush Limbaugh?

Just kidding. Would you agree that it would be a good idea, regardless of whether or not it was possible?

Right now, It is possible, if not probable. Do I agree with what? The OP was a strictly partisan attack.
Lay out a reasonable and rational argument for why...and then it makes sense to agree or not.

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

 

[g5000]

Rush Limbaugh?

Just kidding. Would you agree that it would be a good idea, regardless of whether or not it was possible?

Right now, It is possible, if not probable. Do I agree with what? The OP was a strictly partisan attack.
Lay out a reasonable and rational argument for why...and then it makes sense to agree or not.

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

Then address the disease, not the symptom!

Term limits address the symptom.

Fix what's broken.

 

[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.



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

Pretty nice and well-thought-out post. I would just take issue with one sentence.

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

I would argue that the difficulty in amending the Constitution actually protects the minority from the whims of a slim majority.

I see where you erred...I was not clear enough for being in a thread on a message board...my apologies.

The comment in question "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" needs to be read in the context of the issue(s) I am addressing.

The main issue is the difficulty of amending the Constitution or calling for a Constitutional Convention (Con Con). Madison was addressing factions...factions are not by definition always a minority or a majority, but can be either. Madison was addressing factions using partisan issues that affect the interests and rights of the community as a whole...the majority, dare I say everyone

Part of the reasoning and arguments made for the inclusion Bill of Rights in the Constitution, as a condition of ratification, were to protect the rights of a minority from democracy...the mob...majority rule

 

[nodoginnafight]

Rush Limbaugh?

Just kidding. Would you agree that it would be a good idea, regardless of whether or not it was possible?

Right now, It is possible, if not probable. Do I agree with what? The OP was a strictly partisan attack.
Lay out a reasonable and rational argument for why...and then it makes sense to agree or not.

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

The problem I have with the term limits argument is usually people are fine with THEIR senator. It the senators representing other people that they want to throw out.

If people want to limit the term of THEIR senator, they can vote them out. People in other states have that right as well.

Folks in New York shouldn't really have too much of a say in who represents the people of New Jersey.

Just MHO.

 

[percysunshine]

Right now, It is possible, if not probable. Do I agree with what? The OP was a strictly partisan attack.
Lay out a reasonable and rational argument for why...and then it makes sense to agree or not.

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

The problem I have with the term limits argument is usually people are fine with THEIR senator. It the senators representing other people that they want to throw out.

If people want to limit the term of THEIR senator, they can vote them out. People in other states have that right as well.

Folks in New York shouldn't really have too much of a say in who represents the people of New Jersey.

Just MHO.

My only response to that is that the 2 term limit on Presidents seems like a really good idea.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Right now, It is possible, if not probable. Do I agree with what? The OP was a strictly partisan attack.
Lay out a reasonable and rational argument for why...and then it makes sense to agree or not.

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

Then address the disease, not the symptom!

Term limits address the symptom.

Fix what's broken.

Term limits the way they are written are ridiculous and ineffective, and in many ways they create bigger problems...just look at California.

In CA., state legislators in their last mandated term often neglect the people the large district they represent, in favor of a smaller electorate they intend to serve at the local level. State Senators and Assemblymen can and do run for local office. So they are leaving the state legislature for a local representation seat...and we all know the more local you get the narrower the focus on issues. A wider electorate often views things differently than a narrower one....

think a water issue:

State = Local Famers, Residents, Business interests, Big Agriculture

Local = only Big Agriculture

 

[percysunshine]

Right now, It is possible, if not probable. Do I agree with what? The OP was a strictly partisan attack.
Lay out a reasonable and rational argument for why...and then it makes sense to agree or not.

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

Then address the disease, not the symptom!

Term limits address the symptom.

Fix what's broken.

So pose a better solution in terms of a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Right now, It is possible, if not probable. Do I agree with what? The OP was a strictly partisan attack.
Lay out a reasonable and rational argument for why...and then it makes sense to agree or not.

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

Then address the disease, not the symptom!

Term limits address the symptom.

Fix what's broken.

Term limits also eliminate the benefit of experience and competence and ensure a Congress that is constantly learning on the job. And it is a way to ensure that a state won't always be able to have the Senator it wants to represent it.

I prefer a Constitutional Amendment that limits the Senate and Representatives of being able to use their position to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes at our expense.

We need one Constitutional Amendment that will accomplish the following:

Make them fund their own healthcare plan and 401K that they can take with them, at their own expense, when they leave office. Make them unable to exempt themselves from any law they pass. Make them sign an agreement that they will not work as a lobbyist for any group or entity for 10 years after leaving office. And make it illegal for them to use taxpayer funds to benefit any person, entity, state, municipality, or any other special interest that does not also benefit everybody else.

Do that and at least 90% of our problems with the federal government cease.

 

[percysunshine]

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

Then address the disease, not the symptom!

Term limits address the symptom.

Fix what's broken.

Term limits the way they are written are ridiculous and ineffective, and in many ways they create bigger problems...just look at California.

In CA., state legislators in their last mandated term often neglect the people the large district they represent, in favor of a smaller electorate they intend to serve at the local level. State Senators and Assemblymen can and do run for local office. So they are leaving the state legislature for a local representation seat...and we all know the more local you get the narrower the focus on issues. A wider electorate often views things differently than a narrower one....

think a water issue:

State = Local Famers, Residents, Business interests, Big Agriculture

Local = only Big Agriculture

If McCain were jettisoned, would it be an improvement...?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

The problem I have with the term limits argument is usually people are fine with THEIR senator. It the senators representing other people that they want to throw out.

If people want to limit the term of THEIR senator, they can vote them out. People in other states have that right as well.

Folks in New York shouldn't really have too much of a say in who represents the people of New Jersey.

Just MHO.

My only response to that is that the 2 term limit on Presidents seems like a really good idea.

Stupid idea. The general public should be able to elect an executive leader for however many terms they desire. In our system we have a Legislative branch and a Judicial branch separate from the executive.

Do most people here know that Madison and others argued when creating a bill for establishing executive offices like Secretaries of War, Treasury, etc... they debated whether to make dismissing the Secretaries be made with the advice and consent rule, just as appointments were?

 

[g5000]

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

Then address the disease, not the symptom!

Term limits address the symptom.

Fix what's broken.

So pose a better solution in terms of a Constitutional amendment.

We don't need an amendment to solve the problem. I proposed a much better solution in post 45.

Amendments are a radical means of accomplishing things, and should be a last resort.

 

[percysunshine]

The problem I have with the term limits argument is usually people are fine with THEIR senator. It the senators representing other people that they want to throw out.

If people want to limit the term of THEIR senator, they can vote them out. People in other states have that right as well.

Folks in New York shouldn't really have too much of a say in who represents the people of New Jersey.

Just MHO.

My only response to that is that the 2 term limit on Presidents seems like a really good idea.

Stupid idea. The general public should be able to elect an executive leader for however many terms they desire. In our system we have a Legislative branch and a Judicial branch separate from the executive.

Do most people here know that Madison and others argued when creating a bill for establishing executive offices like Secretaries of War, Treasury, etc... they debated whether to make dismissing the Secretaries be made with the advice and consent rule, just as appointments were?

So a third Bush term would have been a good idea?

Looking back, you might have a point.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

The problem I have with the term limits argument is usually people are fine with THEIR senator. It the senators representing other people that they want to throw out.

If people want to limit the term of THEIR senator, they can vote them out. People in other states have that right as well.

Folks in New York shouldn't really have too much of a say in who represents the people of New Jersey.

Just MHO.

My only response to that is that the 2 term limit on Presidents seems like a really good idea.

I agree and the only distiction I can make is in the big difference in power that the individual president and the individual senator has. A president serving as long as ... say Robert Byrd or Strom Thurman would tip the balance of power more than a senator could.

But I understand that might be considered a slight distinction by many.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

If McCain were jettisoned, would it be an improvement...?

This is an even better example than the OP of whacko partisanship posts posing as reasoned and rational debate