Is it time for not just a couple Constitutional Amendments but a fullblown Constitutional Convention

[Creideiki]

Progressives would stand to lose a lot, but we might gain some important things also. Given that any rollout from a Convention would need to be ratified by 75% of the states (38), can we rollback Corporate Personhood and get an ERA. Two years ago, I'd've said a slamdunk on a progressive agenda. Now I'm not so sure. So do we have more to win or lose strategically? And if we're going to lose a lot yet, how can we reposition the perception of the Center to the actual Center and not the Extreme Right like it has become?

Hasn't any progressive with skill in advertising made it through education gates who can help the DNC?

[MineralMan]

1. Be careful what you wish for. The right wing has been calling

for this for decades. Once you call a Constitutional Convention, everything is changeable. Unless you're certain of the results, they may not be what you'd prefer.

[originalpckelly]

3. For the most part, this constitution of our is an antiquated piece of garbage.

The problem is that it doesn't contemplate some of the huge innovations which have occurred in this world.

Would we trust our fate to medicine from the 18th century? Why the government then?

[sufrommich]

10. No, it's not. I guarantee the right would have a field day.

I have to laugh at some of you who actually believe we would come out of it with a more progressive document.

[Initech]

18. That's exactly why I'm 100% against it.

The right - and especially the religious right - want to completely remove the government from the government. The religious right wants a theocratic government. If they get their man Perry in the white house, they will tame steps to make that happen. :scared:

[Nye Bevan]

25. I actually think it's a work of genius that has stood the test of time.

The Founding Fathers did a very remarkable job.

[Creideiki]

9. I agree completely

That's part of why I'm posing this as a discussion question. The current Constitution is likely 3 times as old as Madison and Jefferson envisioned it should last. Not *would*, but *should*. Better than the Articles of Confederation, but beginning to show real wear and tear.

[UTUSN]

2. KR #1 (tried).There're tons of dead wood in the Constitution, things observed in the breach

If I ruled the convention, I'd:

* Delete the Electoral College.

* Pretty much delete states' rights.

* Delete bi-cameral congress; one house only.

* Direct elections everywhere.

* Delete Gerrymanding; only population-in-proximity districts.

[originalpckelly]

5. We need to have states rights, what a foolish idea.

The problem with our system to a great degree is that power is being excercised by a small minority (537) of people over issues as vast as 300,000,000 people. Either we must radically alter the federal government to include more democracy or we must preserve the independent sovereignty of the states.

We need to avoid gerrymandering perhaps by proportional representation based upon the actual popular vote, with each candidate having a seat in the Congress once they breakthrough a level to be determined as a percentage of the population in the country. Their vote would be apportioned based upon the percentage of the popular vote they received in the election.

Electoral college is a terrible idea.

A bicameral congress exists to act as a check on popular will, so that we do not have wild fluctuations in our government based upon the simple idea of what's popular at the moment.

[UTUSN]

13. Neh, provincial governors worked pretty well for the Romans

And the states (by my grace) would certainly be electing their own governors and the local jurisdictions their own stuff. I don't mean that everybody would be appointed by D.C. --- Oh, and speaking of D.C., how about moving the capital to a less swampy place?!1 *That* idea oughtta trigger the "foolishness" button!1

As for the bicameral deal, we've seen countless times in the past and now what gridlock does. There was no pretense that the Roman provinces had separate identities.

Yes, I go with your first either of your either-or, "radically alter the federal government to include more democracy or we must preserve the independent sovereignty of the states." Sounds like you're contradicting yourself, without calling your idea "foolish." "States' rights" leads inevitably to the idea of secession being a possibility. Plus contradiction your post #3.

[ixion]

8. glad you're not ruling it, then

:wow:

[cali]

4. No, it's not.

[pinto]

6. No, in my opinion. Most of our agenda can be accomplished legislatively.

And sooner. In regular Congressional sessions. What we need I think are more voices in Congress - which means GOTV efforts, locally and statewide. And voicing support for others in our House district races and Senate races to be part of the process - i.e. vote.

:hi:

[Ohio Joe]

14. Well said - +1 - nt

[sufrommich]

7. Are you nuts? No thanks.nt

[Creideiki]

11. Thank you very much for a careful weighing of what could be gained and lost

May I recommend any number of other threads on the board that may interest you? I hear someone's discussing the relative merit of kitties and puppies somewhere.

[Uncle Joe]

12. No, Constitutional Amendments are the perfect scalpel for the job, a Convention would just

be a meat cleaver.

If you; want to remove the malignant tumor of Corporate Personhood, the former is the best tool.

Of course if you prefer to kill the patient, have at the cleaver, with the knowledge that what comes along next will most assuredly be worse.

Thanks for the thread, Creideiki.

[Creideiki]

15. Not just Corporate Personhood (and how would that get passed through states?)

I used that as one example--as I did the ERA which is still pretty much DOA.

There are many other issues that need Constitutional fixes--limits on the Unitary Executive, Judiciary term limits (hasn't Scalia caused enough damage for one semi-human being already?) ways to make Congress more directly answerable to the People?

[Uncle Joe]

16. The same way every other Constitutional Amendment does and the same solution

of Constitutional Amendments can apply to those other causes as well.

I also disagree with the post up-thread that the Founders didn't envision the Constitution lasting this long, that was their goal and that's the primary reason they gave adaptability/flexibility to the Constitution by allowing it to change with the times via Amendments.

Edit to add, It's not easy to change, because stability was and is also important.

[Creideiki]

17. They allowed for it to change via Amendments and via Convention

[Uncle Joe]

19. My belief is that most Americans are Progressive to Moderate but

that doesn't hold true for the number of state governments leaning in that direction.

State governments are easier for mega-corporations; with their vast resources to control, I don't see any major progressive/liberal changes coming from a required convention promoting 2/3 states and passing via 3/4.

However I do see a better chance of sparsely populated and easily dominated states being able to propose conservative, corporate supremacist Amendments via a Convention, the floodgates would be open to them.

That's why the singular Amendment process is better in allowing us to pick and choose our fights when the times are most amenable to winning them.

[Creideiki]

20. It's an advertising/propagandizing with a touch of super-patriotism (association of one's self with

a group). Too many people will espouse progressive ideals when labels are stripped, but until we can get past the super-patriotism, there's a big problem.

Why do people vote against their own best interest? Because their personal integrity is dependent on the "team" that they self-identify with "winning".

[SKKY]

21. We can't agree on a budget...

...and people are talking about a Constitutional Convention. Amazing.

[white_wolf]

22. Our constitution is an outdated joke, but if we let the Right have a say I fear the new one would

be even worse than our current one.

[Initech]

23. The right doesn't even know what's in the constitution!

[marybourg]

24. I don' t think the constitution's an outdated joke. Sounds

to me like the same folks who are trying to subvert our jury system, after trying and not succeeding to subvert the judiciary ( and flouridation).