Is it time to re-convene the Constitutional Congress?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

I've been a board member of several non-profits over time, and what I've come to believe is that every organization needs to at least review its guiding principles and bylaws on a regular basis to make sure things still make sense. I think we're well past that point for our nation.

At least in terms of the structure of our government, I personally feel that we need to re-evaluate whether or not our system still works as it was intended. Does separation of powers work? Could it be improved? Should Supreme Court Justices really have an endless term? Should the Legislative Branch have more clearly defined rules? Does the Bill of Rights need to be reworded?

For me, even if the assembly yielded no changes, I think it would be a very healthy exercise. How do you feel about the idea? What would you propose changing?

My answer on the first question is clear. As for the second question, I feel that going back to the original intent of having Supreme Court Justices having an endless term was such that they could operate free of politics. However, I don't feel that this has panned out in reality as it was intended. I would propose a single 10 year term for all SCOTUS Justices, staggered such that essentially, each Presidential term would typically have only one nomination to the group. That would minimize the lasting influence of any single President and would regularly refresh the courts. As for the Legislative Branch, I don't think changing the proportionality of representation would be politically feasible (even if necessary), but I do think a better Constitutional establishment of parliamentary procedure is desperately in order.

[cliffordu]

1. I object.

Whoops. Forgot where I was for just a second.

[mikelgb]

2. Just remember that if we do, progressives will not be the only ones at the table.

Frankly I wouldn't trust my Constitution to the current body politic.

Imagine a constitution that defines marriage and has the word abortion in it.

[niyad]

3. my thoughts exactly--remember the "con-con" talk a few years ago--the reichwing

wanted it--and basically were going to obliterate the constitution.

[Demeter]

25. Which Bush Managed to Do in Less Than 8 Years without a Convention

and which the Democrats seem happy to live with, as a party. No, everybody should be represented, and heard, and their ideas examined. there would be only one guideline--Is this idea worthy to become a compulsory law, or a matter of personal choice? No personal choices qualify to be made by constitutional law. The constitution shall permit personal freedoms wherever such does not interfere with someone else's personal freedom. And personhood starts at first breath.

[wryter2000]

4. Exactly

Imagine what Michelle Bachman might work in there. No thanks. :scared:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. Fair enough, but it's not really the point.

At least not for me. I don't think it's to be done solely for partisan gain, but rather to evaluate where we are as a democracy. Yeah, crazies will be at the table, but they were way back when too.

[Deep13]

5. The tea-baggers will love the idea. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Really? I'd think the opposite, frankly.

But that's really not the point. The point is to evaluate whether or not our democracy is working.

[Deep13]

15. They can finally write wing-nut Christianity into the Constitution.

As far as the evaluation, let me save you the trouble. It's not working.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

17. So... we should leave a failing system in place because we fear the results of changing it?

How about this - could the Constitutional Congress not lead us to the conclusion that we should not be a unified nation? If what you say is true - that ultra-conservatives would attempt to, and possibly succeed in writing Christianity directly into a new Constitution, would that not lead a great portion of the population to believe that they shouldn't be a part of it? Isn't that a healthy debate to have too?

[Deep13]

18. The thing is, we have already had that debate.

We had it in 1787. I consider it a settled point. With some tweeking, the present system could work quite well. What we really need to do is to end the system of institutional bribery we call "campaign finance." If it takes an amendment to get around Citizens United, then I'm all for it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. That's fine if you think the debate was settled once and for all 223 years ago.

Personally, I think that enough time has lapsed that it should be at least discussed again.

[pampango]

6. You betcha. If we can't beat the right wing at a constitutional convention, we're never going to

beat them in the current system that is rigged in their favor. As currently structured, we spend our time fighting to "lose more slowly" and to hang on to the crumbs we still have rather than in winning and creating any fundamental positive change.

[Demeter]

12. Good Point!

A properly run convention (say, by Dr. Howard Dean!) would keep the crazies in their place while getting them what they really want--an end to their mental misery through improved government.

[Demeter]

9. Painful as a New Constitutional Convention Would Be

we need to work on idiot-proofing the Constitution we have--tighten up the language, remove some of the vagary, plug loopholes blasted out by events and advances in bastardy, and incorporating technology to safeguard elections and human rights.

The Founding Fathers' Constitution was good for quite a while, while we had Newtonian politics. The contradictory impulses they encoded could be accommodated. But now in the age of quantum politics, the old model for Government must be updated to incorporate very large effects (globalism), very small effects, and border problems, just as quantum physics expanded and refined Newtonian physics.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. I agree

If nothing else, it should account for a different way in which we view ourselves as a nation. Do we really think of ourself as 50 nation-states that are moderately affiliated, like the EU? Or do we think of our "states" in a manner similar to how other countries view provinces? I'd argue the latter, yet our Constitution assumes the former. That, in and of itself, is a huge difference.

[Bullet1987]

10. I wrote yes, but

the problem really isn't the Constitution per se. The biggest problem facing America right now is internal...not external.

[Demeter]

The Constitution is the shaky structure

which doesn't prevent stupidity like rigged elections and corporate capture. Those two items alone would fix a lot of what's wrong.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. But how adept is our Constitution in addressing those internal problems?

I don't have the answer to that question really, but the point of having such a document is to sustain the basis of a nation irregardless of the inevitability of inept leadership from time to time. In some regards, it has - I think it's done a great job of preventing mob rule. In others, it hasn't - the safeguards against mob rule have become horribly abused in some cases.

Again, I think that a minimum, it would be a healthy debate to have, even if nothing changes.

[zipplewrath]

13. Your poll sucks

As such, there is no way for me to participate. Yes, I think most folks that pay attention would realize that there are some fundamental problems with the constituion, either originally, or as amended. However, one may not wish to call a convention, despite believing this. You don't have to believe it is "timeless" to come to that conclusion.

There were big mistakes made up and down the line in the original constitution. The real question is whether it is "good enough" to continue working within, allowing for some constant updating.

Generally I suggest yes. Or probably a better way of stating this is that I don't believe that a convention would produce a "superior" result, nor do I believe there is a real concensus on what needs changing, or how to change it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Generally, you proved my point and still arrived at a conclusion

So, no, the poll doesn't suck. And as for the "timeless" aspect, you answered yourself - if a call to convene to update the Constitution isn't necessary, then the only other way to make changes is via the means enumerated in the Constitution itself. Thus, timeless. Without calling people together to debate this, what other way do we have to amend it?

[zipplewrath]

20. You have a low standard for "timeless"

The document is anything but timeless. It is merely "the girl that brung ya". I'm still around, and my wife plans on keeping me, but neither of us would refer to ourselves as timeless. At some point we'll merely be stubborn.

And we've never needed to "call people together" to amend it before, and we've done so 17 times beyond the original document.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. ....

I think we're on the same page enough to end this portion of the conversation.

[SteppingRazor]

19. Yes, I'd like that. And I'd mandate publically financed campaigns, proportional representation...

and instant-runoff voting.

[LiberalFighter]

21. Who would be the members of this Constitutional Convention?

No fn way!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

24. Dunno. Governors? Separately elected delegates?

I'd let states decide who to send. Sort of an irrelevant detail to the context of this debate, which is whether or not we should revisit the state of our nation's guiding document.

[quaker bill]

26. There is no good reason

to believe that you or I would like the way it would turn out. On the other hand, there are tons of reasons why it is likely that I would not like the results. The risk is almost entirely on the downside.

[depakid]

27. I don't know- as it stands America is a failing state

due to structural problems ordained by an archaic 18th Century document- a system which no one else in the world chose to use (the Philippines and Liberia being historical artifacts and exceptions to the prevailing rule).

The alternative- do nothing, virtually guarantees that the nation will be prevented from solving its current problems, much less meeting the challenges of the 21st Century.

[quaker bill]

29. The fact that things are bad

does not mean that they cannot get worse, in fact, quite a bit worse. On occasion, doing nothing is by far and away the best answer.

[DFLforever]

28. Amendments are for updating.

Do people actually have the confidence that a founding document could be improved if re-written today?

[ieoeja]

30. Given that the GOP opposes 9 of the 10 bill of rights ... ARE YOU FUCKING INSANE!!!

Seriously. The US Supreme Court, even packed with RWers, would protect more of our rights than half the people in this country today. And you want to make it easy for them to fuck us over?

[jefferson_dem]

31. Are you serious?

Hell no! Leave it be. The Constitution works great, at least relative to all other options.

I wouldn't trust the contemporary American public (in general, let alone the teabaggers) to fix it properly. In fact, they would fuck it all up in a big way.

[AlinPA]

32. Yes. The Senate is not working out the way they expected. Senseless partisanship is the thing they

feared. Now it's making the Senate unworkable.

[treestar]

33. Not a bad idea

IMO the filibuster should not be allowed any more. The Senate making its own rules is fine, but there should be a limit. Maybe an amendment would do for that, however.

Also possibly the Senate should be more proportional. I am from a small state and so I get the need to have states exist and be represented as such, but in modern times, it is just not working and the states don't seem such a big deal. The smaller were worried the bigger would outvote them on everything. But now individuals seem to matter more than the states they live in.

The reason we don't have a health care system - that seems to be because the red states have too much power, relative to their populations, because of the Senate.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. Absolutely NOT; we'd NEVER get as good a deal on religion

We should be spending time repealing offenses against the First Amendment on the subject, but we should thank our lucky stars for the foresight of the founders.