I'm pretty certain that the reason we haven't had a constitutional convention since 1787 is because we haven't needed one. We've managed to get numerous amendments into that thing anyhow, with a balanced budget amendment possibly being debated in the near future. If things are important enough to be in the constitution, they can be proposed as amendments. And amendments can be used to change original pieces if you want.
I'm pretty certain that the reason we haven't had a constitutional convention since 1787 is because we haven't needed one. We've managed to get numerous amendments into that thing anyhow, with a balanced budget amendment possibly being debated in the near future. If things are important enough to be in the constitution, they can be proposed as amendments. And amendments can be used to change original pieces if you want.
From what I've been reading, it looks like they tried a few times, but failed to get the 2/3rds state support. Which is the likely outcome in this case. But it's something to think about as a "what if".
Desimos is right on the front of the states' themselves running the show. It's like one of those obscure D&D rules the lawyer player brings out and raises a stink about at the table.
My main problem is that the urban population of the nation is grossly underrepresented if the states are equally represented in such a convention. It would put the majority of the US population's fate into the hands of a disconnected minority.
My main problem is that the urban population of the nation is grossly underrepresented if the states are equally represented in such a convention. It would put the majority of the US population's fate into the hands of a disconnected minority.
You mean like the US Senate is, rather than the House of Representatives? I'm assuming a constitutional congress would be similar to the former rather than the latter?
I think it's an interesting idea. Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed.
What? How would that work, exactly?
There is no legal mechanism that currently exists that can even come close to doing this. I would really like to know what you're talking about. Are you talking about exchanging one level of government for another? Maybe adding a layer of government?
"A federal constitutional convention, designed to give states powers similar to Congress to propose amendments, has not been held since 1787 when the constitution was first drafted." "The power to make these changes is derived from Article V of the Constitution, which allows a constitutional convention at the request of legislatures of two thirds of the states. But such a process has never been carried to completion."
From the article I linked earlier.
ARE YOU ENTERTAINED?
The quote from your article and your comment "Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed." bear no relation to one another. Certainly, there can be another constitutional convention. However, your statement was that the states would "convene to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed." See how those things are different? Going "around the Fed" as you say is nonsense with regards to an actual, new constitutional convention. There wouldn't be amendments. There would be a new constitution. The new convention would destroy the old "Fed". There would be nothing left to "go around".
So, to answer your question; I'm not entertained at all. I'm actually a little depressed that you clearly know so little about this subject but continue to think you know so much.
I'm pretty certain that the reason we haven't had a constitutional convention since 1787 is because we haven't needed one. We've managed to get numerous amendments into that thing anyhow, with a balanced budget amendment possibly being debated in the near future. If things are important enough to be in the constitution, they can be proposed as amendments. And amendments can be used to change original pieces if you want.
That's correct. That's one of the reasons the Constitution is known as a "living document". Another reason is that the Court can interpret the Constitution and discover new meaning, such as the right to privacy. Try finding the actual words "right to privacy" in the Constitution. When you can't, read the abortion and homosexuality cases where the Court found that such a right exists within the "penumbra" of the bill or rights. Try finding in the Constitution where Congress has the power to enact things like the RICO statute. Then, when you can't find it, read the Commerce Clause cases.
That's why we don't need a new convention. Amendments and interpretation do fine to adapt the Constitution to reasonable changing needs. A new convention, particularly in the era of Bachmann/Perry/Palin and the like, is just asking for trouble. Costly, costly trouble at that. Can you even begin to imagine what such a thing would cost in actual dollars and in terms of lost productivity? With those types of people who love to be on TV? Imagine ten different OJ Simpson trials going on at once.
That's why we don't need a new convention. Amendments and interpretation do fine to adapt the Constitution to reasonable changing needs. A new convention, particularly in the era of Bachmann/Perry/Palin and the like, is just asking for trouble. Costly, costly trouble at that. Can you even begin to imagine what such a thing would cost in actual dollars and in terms of lost productivity? With those types of people who love to be on TV? Imagine ten different OJ Simpson trials going on at once.
Yeah, it would just be a clusterfuck. In 1787 we had (about) 2,780,000 people in the US (source). From 17 states. Also, because the "nation" was so young and hadn't taken to a whole lot of mass immigration yet, I'd imagine there were less varied viewpoints to consider. Nowadays, we have around 307,006,550 people. If my math is right, that's around 110x the number of people. And 50 states (and a commonwealth) plus a few protectorates and nearly-states (Puerto Rico comes to mind). With a staggering number of viewpoints and backgrounds.
I doubt we'd be able to get through defining a preamble. Just imagine what the fights would be like as every single viewpoint vies to be included in the first paragraph.
The only real reason I can see to try to call for that would be to get press time for being the person to call for that. Or, if your goal is self-empowerment and a desire to see the US crumble.
I doubt we'd be able to get through defining a preamble. Just imagine what the fights would be like as every single viewpoint vies to be included in the first paragraph.
Don't forget that in 1787, only wealthy, landed, white men mattered.
I think it's an interesting idea. Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed.
What? How would that work, exactly?
There is no legal mechanism that currently exists that can even come close to doing this. I would really like to know what you're talking about. Are you talking about exchanging one level of government for another? Maybe adding a layer of government?
"A federal constitutional convention, designed to give states powers similar to Congress to propose amendments, has not been held since 1787 when the constitution was first drafted." "The power to make these changes is derived from Article V of the Constitution, which allows a constitutional convention at the request of legislatures of two thirds of the states. But such a process has never been carried to completion."
From the article I linked earlier.
ARE YOU ENTERTAINED?
The quote from your article and your comment "Convene the states to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed." bear no relation to one another. Certainly, there can be another constitutional convention. However, your statement was that the states would "convene to possibly make amendments to the constitution that super-cedes and goes around the Fed." See how those things are different? Going "around the Fed" as you say is nonsense with regards to an actual, new constitutional convention. There wouldn't be amendments. There would be a new constitution. The new convention would destroy the old "Fed". There would be nothing left to "go around".
So, to answer your question; I'm not entertained at all. I'm actually a little depressed that you clearly know so little about this subject but continue to think you know so much.
"A federal constitutional convention, designed to give states powers similar to Congress to propose amendments" I don't think I can be any clearer than that. I'm discussing an article, go argue with the editor. I say HEEEYYYYY OOOOH This what I saaaaaay ohhhh
"A federal constitutional convention, designed to give states powers similar to Congress to propose amendments
Congress is "the states." Who else do you propose to be "the states?"
"legislatures of two thirds of the states"
Wait, you want to give state legislators power over the federal government? Don't you see the problem inherent to... I mean... do you see what that does? The Supreme Court ruled long ago that federalism has blanket power that supersedes that of the states. And now you want to make that incestuous and circular.
Not to mention: Have you ever met a state legislator? They are usually Bob the Carpet Store Guy from Peduca. There is literally nobody less qualified to have a hand in amending the Constitution than a state legislator looking after purely regional interests.
"A federal constitutional convention, designed to give states powers similar to Congress to propose amendments
Congress is "the states." Who else do you propose to be "the states?"
"legislatures of two thirds of the states"
Wait, you want to give state legislators power over the federal government? Don't you see the problem inherent to... I mean... do you see what that does? The Supreme Court ruled long ago that federalism has blanket power that supersedes that of the states. And now you want to make that incestuous and circular.
Not to mention: Have you ever met a state legislator? They are usually Bob the Carpet Store Guy from Peduca. There is literally nobody less qualified to have a hand in amending the Constitution than a state legislator looking after purely regional interests.
stay focused, it's an article about this topic, no one is really advocating it. No one really believes this will happen. Besides, their qualifications are irrelevant to the fact of whether the Constitution grants them this ability or not. Their qualifications are relevant only in a discussion of whether they should have this power.
One of my friends just received this email from a Concerned Group of Citizens. Take a deep breath before reading it, you'll need all of that air for laughter. Also, note that every one of the links goes to a donation page where the most expensive option is kindly selected and bolded.
One of my friends just received this email from a Concerned Group of Citizens. Take a deep breath before reading it, you'll need all of that air for laughter. Also, note that every one of the links goes to a donation page where the most expensive option is kindly selected and bolded.
Yeah, I like to imagine the person typing it just typed it all as one big sentence, angrily staring at the screen and slamming fingers down onto keys. The sentence structure was added later (punctuation).
Or possibly he's using text-to-speech and is just screaming at the screen, almost incomprehensibly.
Also the author of that is possibly the reason that so many people lump "people who enjoy firearms and shooting sports" with "gun nuts", judging from the list of books he's authored.
Ron Paul speaks on the topic of what is happening with the government and military today:
There's been a coup, have you heard? It's the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They're the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. ... And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. ... And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They're in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators ... We need to take out the CIA.
Holy fuck how did this crazy prick get into congress. Do you not fucking test for this sort of thing? Oh, I don't know, a short quiz that says "Are you crazier than a half-imbred badger mainlining LSD while rolling fucking salvia joints with the other paw?" second question "Are you sure?" Do you just grab the nearest homeless prick, ask him what his name is, and if he'd like a high-level position in the government in exchange for shaving and taking off his hat made out of an old fucking number plate? "Oh, we Must warn you crazy homeless man paul, you might have to spend time away from your kids with their half a fucking big mac and your wife with her fucking tampons made out of old muffins and screaming about how we're sexualising our giraffes to early, but we'll clean up under the bridge for them, there's shit everywhere" "IT'S THE LIZARD PEOPLE I TELL YOU THEY RUN THE WORLD WITH THOSE INTERNET WIZARDS FROM NEW YORK" "He's perfect, get that man a seat and a voter base."
Jesus christ, what the fuck. What the stuttering fuck.
Comments
My main problem is that the urban population of the nation is grossly underrepresented if the states are equally represented in such a convention. It would put the majority of the US population's fate into the hands of a disconnected minority.
So, to answer your question; I'm not entertained at all. I'm actually a little depressed that you clearly know so little about this subject but continue to think you know so much.
That's why we don't need a new convention. Amendments and interpretation do fine to adapt the Constitution to reasonable changing needs. A new convention, particularly in the era of Bachmann/Perry/Palin and the like, is just asking for trouble. Costly, costly trouble at that. Can you even begin to imagine what such a thing would cost in actual dollars and in terms of lost productivity? With those types of people who love to be on TV? Imagine ten different OJ Simpson trials going on at once.
I doubt we'd be able to get through defining a preamble. Just imagine what the fights would be like as every single viewpoint vies to be included in the first paragraph.
The only real reason I can see to try to call for that would be to get press time for being the person to call for that. Or, if your goal is self-empowerment and a desire to see the US crumble.
I'm discussing an article, go argue with the editor.
I say HEEEYYYYY OOOOH This what I saaaaaay ohhhh
Not to mention: Have you ever met a state legislator? They are usually Bob the Carpet Store Guy from Peduca. There is literally nobody less qualified to have a hand in amending the Constitution than a state legislator looking after purely regional interests.
Or possibly he's using text-to-speech and is just screaming at the screen, almost incomprehensibly.
Also the author of that is possibly the reason that so many people lump "people who enjoy firearms and shooting sports" with "gun nuts", judging from the list of books he's authored.
Jesus christ, what the fuck. What the stuttering fuck.