So. Constitutional Convention. Let's talk.

[Stinky The Clown]

Who would be a delegate to such a convention? Is representation proportional to population? Is representation reflective of the thinking of the MAJORITY of citizens?

If it is fair and truly representative, I may be all for it.

Lose the Electoral College.

One term and done for Supremes. No lifetime tenures.

Expand the House to be reflective of population. Maybe one representative for every . . . . I dunno . . . . 500,000 citizens? A million? For states under the threshold in population, one rep.

Senators in numbers of greater than two, but with a two Senator minimum.

I could go on and on.

A Constitutional Convention that represents the people fairly could be a good thing.

[manor321]

1. No, that's ridiculous

shaking my head

[Puzzledtraveller]

17. in unison here

[grantcart]

27. Makes you wonder if people even read the constitution

[H2O Man]

30. It's worth reading

and discussing the Constitution. That's not to suggest that there aren't interesting suggestions for new amendments. But that is, in my opinion (for what it's worth), is a superior conversation than a convention. In fact, the current danger is the chipping away at an increasing rate of the Constitution, which a convention could totally destroy.

[WillowTree]

45. I never cease to be amazed at how many people around here know so little about it......

…….and yet will argue endlessly with those who actually have read and even studied it.

[Hortensis]

56. We KNOW it would not be "fair and truly representative."

For the people who've been planning this for a long time, the whole point is to make our government unfair and far less representative. Nor is changing our representative government into a far more authoritarian conservative form the only bad thing that could happen.

The unruliness of various warring factions characterized by bad intentions, good intentions, incompetence, and extremism could result in a dangerously unworkable (as well as undemocratic since the powers driving this would have victories) constitution, severely destabilizing our government.

Once it was the constitution, though,that would be it. The judiciary's job is to uphold it. And it seems likely that the inimical forces it empowered would try to use any and all problems to take over and consolidate their power.

[WhiteTara]

2. You know this is a Koch bro put up, don't you?

Their hearts desire is to rewrite the constitution and get rid of those icky parts like liberty and justice for all.

[Stinky The Clown]

4. I absolutely know that

But if our side can own it . . . . . .

[Skidmore]

22. Why would we want to own

something the Koch machine cooked up? Wouldn't they be looking for a cut?? No alliances with Kochs. They've done enough damage.

[sharedvalues]

54. Can't own it as Rs would have the majority

So they’d ram through a lot of stuff you wouldn’t like.

[Zoonart]

3. Just NO.

One of many articles, easily found, that will take the lustre off a constitutional Convention for Democrats:

The Koch Brothers Want A New Constitution — And They’re Closer Than You Think

https://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/koch-brothers-want-new-constitution-theyre-closer-you-think-2552039

[sfwriter]

11. That article makes me think we should prepare for it

Who are left wing thought leases on this?

[Voltaire2]

5. A convention would be essentially one state one vote.

So it would be empty space outvoting cities, just like the senate and the electoral college.

No thanks.

[Stinky The Clown]

7. Are you sure of that?

Are there rules somewhere?

[Voltaire2]

19. The constitution says nothing.

It does not define how it is constituted, nor does it clearly state that congress can define how it is constituted. There has been exactly one constitutional convention in our history and each state had an equal vote. Further the ratification process for amendments is one state one vote. Requiring 3/4 of the states, not 3/4 of the people.

It will not be in our interests.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. It could also be a very bad thing.

It's an idea right-wing think tanks have been pushing for some time.

A dangerous proposal is circulating in states across the country that could widen political divisions and jeopardize cherished rights and freedoms. The push is coming primarily from well-organized, arch-conservative groups seeking to capitalize on the decline in public trust in government to limit the federal government’s role and spending powers. And the method they prefer is a constitutional convention — the first since the 1787 conclave that produced the U.S. Constitution.

Under the Constitution, if two-thirds of state legislatures call for a convention to amend it, one must be convened. Some of those pushing for a convention say that 24 of the needed 34 legislatures have approved such resolutions. Advocates of a convention have targeted more than a dozen other states and are developing lobbying campaigns to push for such resolutions there.

The implications are enormous. At stake, potentially, are the freedoms we take for granted under the Bill of Rights; the powers of the president, Congress and the courts; and the policies the government can or cannot pursue. Conventioneers could alter absolutely anything about the way the United States is governed. Some say they want to terminate all federal taxes and to require super-majorities in the House and the Senate to put any new taxes in their place. Others want to bar the government from carrying out a number of its functions, for example by constraining its ability to regulate interstate commerce. Whatever changes a convention approved would be enshrined in the Constitution if three-fourths of the states ratified them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/a-constitutional-convention-could-be-the-single-most-dangerous-way-to-fix-american-government/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.d6fd92ee0f22

We need to be careful what we wish for because we might get it.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. If we OWN what we wish for, we might get it.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

15. We could kiss a lot of the Bill of Rights goodbye.

There's a reason the Kochs and other right-wingers have been pushing this; they, and not we, are the ones who will own it. The only amendment they won't want to change for the worse is the second.

[elleng]

12. Right, BAD idea.

[Sherman A1]

8. One word

NO

[elleng]

10. Much too dangerous, considering power of trumpsters

and ignorance of deplorables.

[elocs]

13. Beware the results of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

A Constitutional convention is a bad, BAD idea.

[COLGATE4]

23. Bad, bad idea X 1000 nt

[sarisataka]

14. Since conventions are about compromise

Are you willing to make some trades for the things you listed above.

Some things I can think of off the top of my head that would be asked / demanded for:

America is a Christian Nation founded on Christian principles and all laws should be interpreted with this basis in mind

Marriage shall be defined and reserved solely as a union between one man and one woman

Laws regarding moral conduct should be defined locally and therefore be solely the provinces of the states. Examples of such include, but are not limited to, the legality of abortion, the legality of homosexual conduct and the rights of business owners or individuals to accept or refuse service based on deeply held religious beliefs

[Fatemah2774]

32. This is the crux of the argument

The spirit of compromise may be initially sought but amendments linked to the Theological Moral Christian wannabes and Right Wing fanatics will make this a constitution much like the Third Reich or of Pinochet.

Just saying.

[Codeine]

16. Absolutely none of those things would happen.

A right-wing populist free-for-all is more like it — open season on the Federal government and taxation.

The podunk states would have the power, and nothing good comes out of Flyover Country.

[scarletwoman]

18. It will simply not be possible for one "that represents the people fairly" at this time.

Too dangerous. Way too dangerous. Way, way too, too dangerous!

I wouldn't risk it until Fox News has gone out of existence, until Rush Limbaugh has vanished from the airwaves, until Citizens United has been overturned, until all right wing PACs have been outlawed, until all the myriad right wing think tanks have disbanded and disappeared - in other words, no way, no how, at this time in our history.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. I agree with your point "at this time"

[jberryhill]

20. I don't understand your "expand the House" part

The House is already proportional to population.

Maybe one representative for every . . . . I dunno . . . . 500,000 citizens? A million? For states under the threshold in population, one rep.

I don't know how to break this to you, but it currently works out to one rep per 700,000 citizens, and one rep for any state with less than 700,000 citizens.

This proposal isn't even a "change".

[Stinky The Clown]

29. Thanks for "breaking it to me"

[jberryhill]

37. Well, maybe you should be happy that one of your reforms was enacted so quickly

[Hassin Bin Sober]

44. Lol

[Atticus]

21. Totally disagree. The opportunity to recast the American government in their own

image would be entirely too much for the Kochs and their ilk to resist. They would buy the new Constitution with their billions if they could, but----and I am serious as a heart attack---- they would stage confrontations and kill as many as necessary to write their libertarian ideals into our governing document. Their reasoning would be that such slaughter would be legal under their new Constitution because they would draft it in such a way as to justify "extremism in defense of liberty" or some such BS.

A Constitutional convention in this atmosphere would be an invitation to fascism and would bring all of the militia cockroaches out from under their rocks.

[Squinch]

25. It would not be fair and truly representative. It would be bought and paid for by the Kochs.

[WeekiWater]

26. I think Governorships currently breakdown 33R - 16D -1I NT

[Hekate]

28. Once I found out who was plotting it, I lost all interest in such a thing. Kochs. ALEC.

I think 38 state legislatures have to buy into the notion, and they have 23 (?) on board already.

I am as serious as a heart attack -- and so are they. So, no no no a thousand times no.

[Thekaspervote]

40. The Dems are about to retake 7-8 govenorships possible more. CC goes to the back burner

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

31. There is simply no mechanism for a Constitutional Convention.

There is one for amendments to the Constitution.

People here have been proposing term limits for both Congress and the Supreme Court, and I want to say that's an incredibly bad idea. Term Limits for the Supreme Court would have new justices confirmed every year or so. That strikes me as something that would add to the divisiveness that's already here.

As for Congress, institutional memory would be lost. And for every long-term member of Congress you don't like, there's probably another long time incumbent you do like. Think about term limiting Ted Kennedy for starters.

What we need instead are genuine grass-roots organization on our side. The Republicans, especially the evangelical conservatives have been doing this since Barry Goldwater. And they do it for the state legislatures. Run for office. I have.

A Constitutional Convention is a pie in the sky idea that simply isn't going to happen.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

33. This

The Koch sponsored effort isn't a Constitutional Convention, its a Article 5 Convention. The Convention would bypass Congress and call the States to propose new Amendments, which would then still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Now that being said, I spotted something in Article 5 that may be a issue for those that want to see the Senate changed. The tail end of Article 5 lists exceptions to the amendment process, namely it prohibits any amendment regarding slavery and taxes until 1808.

; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Did you see this part?.

and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

If the Senate is to be changed, EVERY STATE must ratify such a change. I learned something new today.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

41. That seems like a very good thing.

Two Senators per state was intended to give less populous states an equal voice. Which actually strikes me as pretty reasonable. Not all low population states are red. I'm in New Mexico, population just over 2 million, which ranks us 36. We have two Democratic Senators who are reasonably good at their job.

[Polybius]

46. I remember hearing someone say that not even a Constitutional Amendment could disband the Senate

And give us a Prime Minister. He said only a CC could do it. I guess he was right.

[Initech]

34. Except we all know that won't happen.

The Koch Bros are the ones who could pull it off and you know it will represent only two groups of people:

1) Billionaires

2) The religious right

It won't represent us. Which is why I'm currently 100% against it.

[rurallib]

35. If I could write the rules and pick the participants, I might be for it

which is probably exactly what the Koch have in mind - making the rules and picking the players.

[Joe941]

36. Horrible idea.

[CK_John]

38. Why not split into 12 regions in place of states, and 6yr for pres and 12 yrs max for

government head of departments.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

39. The conservatives also want a CC for entirely different reasons

The fear of some people on both sides is this: does it have to stick to an agenda, or can it do any damn thing it wants, once convened.

Most Conservatives want congressional term limits and a balanced budget amendment. Many want a RTL amendment. Progressives want to end the EC, and end corporate personhood. Many want a reproductive freedom amendment.

At some point, the nation needs to decide whether the President is or isn't above the law (perhaps amend to say he can't fire the AG without unanimous support of the SCOTUS); needs to decide on some way to force Congress to give up or down votes on judges (I think 90 days is sufficient); and should consider substituting the word "media" for "press" in 1A.

None of this will happen.

I think maybe you could find 37 states to agree on a balanced budget amendment. I guarantee you could find 37 states to say that the feds can't pass unfunded mandates. beyond that, it's hard to find agreement on much.

[Jim Lane]

48. Right! Balanced budget and term limits are the likely outcomes.

Regardless of what comes out of a convention, it would take 38 states (not 37) to ratify any proposed amendment. That means that the 13 most liberal states could block an anti-abortion amendment, the 13 most conservative states could block campaign finance reform, and the 13 smallest states could block eliminating the Electoral College.

What might fly would be something that cut along federal versus state lines. The whole Article V process is completely controlled by the states. I could see a lot of state legislators, even Democrats, voting for a federal balanced-budget amendment. They would get to pose as champions of fiscal rectitude. Incumbent Senators and Representatives would be left with the task of casting unpopular votes to raise taxes and/or cut spending. If those unpopular votes make them vulnerable at the polls, why, lookie here, we have a state legislator who's ready to step up.

For the same reason, term limits for Congress would appeal to state legislators who are frustrated that it's so hard to unseat an incumbent by getting more votes. Much simpler to bypass that pesky electoral process.

Federal term limits would be bad, and a balanced-budget amendment would be a catastrophe.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

49. I think Federal Term limits is a Devil/Details thing

Something like 9 house terms, 3 senate terms, 24 years on the SCOTUS could be good, but the far shorter limits I've seen proposed would not work.

Besides, every 2-6 years, we have the power to limit congressional terms now.

[roamer65]

42. Only if it contains a secession amendment like the EU's Article 50.

If the Constitution were rewritten, states need to have the ability to opt out.

[Separation]

43. I cant unrec this enough

A Constitutional Convention once held, is opening Pandora's Box.

There are only around 9 more Republican Governors needed to pass through and ratify something put up at the C.C.

Reinstate slavery? Possible.

President for life? Possible

Abolishment of multi party political system? Possible

Jail time for anyone that kneels or disrespects the Anthem or Flag? Possible

Banning all religions except Christianity? Possible

Think of the worst laws possible that you can think of. Then know that there is shit being thought out there that make those thoughts seem like a Sunday School picnic.

[myohmy2]

47. I like the idea...

...but the country would have to be in the midst of a strong Socialist era or else the 1% and corporations would own and control it...

...and if the 1% and their corporations owned and controlled a CC, we'd end up with a Constitution much worse than we now have...

...like in today's trumpian politics, the 1% and corporations would compromise and distort truth to the point that it would be impossible for the average American to know the fine print...

...hidden would be, of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations...

...wait, that's what we now have...

[ancianita]

50. Absolutely no no no constitutional convention while any Koch libertarians are alive.

As historian Nancy MacLean has pointed out:

The libertarian cause was never really about freedom as most people would define it. It was about the promotion of crippling division among the people so as to end any interference with what those who held vast power over others believed should be their prerogatives...

Today, knowing that the majority does not share their goals and would stop them if they understood the endgame, the team ... seeks to win by stealth... changed the language.

The goal of the cause "must shift from who rules to change the rules ... figure out how to put legal -- indeed, constitutional -- shackles on public officials...so powerful that no matter how sympathetic these officials might be to the will of majorities ... they would no longer have the ability to respond to those who used their numbers...these shackles had to be binding and permanent ... the will of the majority could no longer influence government on core matters ... through what he called "constitutional revolution."

These ideas aren't even the scariest part that the James Buchanan, Kochs and their GOP-paid executive producers have planned for this "rule revolution." At least read MacLean's introduction to her primary document-based, National Book Award nominated book, Democracy In Chains (2017), to get some idea of how much time and money has been invested in this stealth plan.

Steal is key to the word stealth.

[Thekaspervote]

51. Didn't you already post this? A few days ago

You sound informed, so you already know that it takes 2/3 of the states to begin the process. With Dems taking back at least 6 governorships, possibly 8. It isn’t going to happen.

[Stinky The Clown]

55. Late readers, like you, keep this post from a few days ago alive.

[Turin_C3PO]

52. I wish we could eliminate the EC.

But that’s all it is. A wish. Our collective energy is best spent elsewhere.

[gordianot]

53. At this time almost half the population of the United States should be in the same room.

Our Constitution is fragile enough as is stands. A new Convention would bring out every vulture, despot, religious nut, crook, opportunist, in an impossible task of compromise. Throw out what has evolved to date? I do not think so.

[anarch]

57. I don't know about a constitutional convention, but I would support another try at New Deal-type

legislation like was probably FDR's intent (e.g. the "2nd Bill of Rights" initiatives, perhaps updated to take our current technological infrastructure into consideration--so, simplified with respect to the several items intended to ensure basic survival and freedom of commerce, and perhaps expanded to include access to communications technologies such as internet access).

We wouldn't need a Constitutional Convention for that, just a long-term advertising campaign in conjunction with the eradication of these nefarious right wing influencers like we have with AM radio, the ubiquity of Fox News, Russian bots all over the place, etc. If a clear majority, or even just an obvious plurality of the general population were supporting such "Socialist" initiatives, and if we eventually are able to return to a representative government (that is, representative of the actual people, not the "people" consisting of various corporations and wealthy special interests), we could do this.

We could at least move in this direction, perhaps taking the approach of making small improvements with tangible positive effects that improve average people's lives. "Obamacare" is a good example of what I mean--it didn't instantly provide Universal Healthcare, but was a step in the right direction and (unless you are determined not to see the good results, or have a vested interest in maintaining the current profit structures inherent in the medical/insurance industries) has tangibly improved the lives of many.

At any rate, I like your suggestions...if we're talking ultimate, best-possible-world ideas, I'd include Universal Healthcare, Education all the way to whatever advanced degrees people wish to pursue, and Universal Basic Income or something that would similarly give citizens the assurance that the nation (i.e., their neighbors and fellow citizens) is looking out for them on a personal level and they should never have to fear for their lives or feel desperation about feeding their children, and never be in endless debt, just being treated as a profit-stream for funneling all of our collective wealth into the pockets of a few greedy scumbags...

I definitely agree that a government actually representing the will of the people (and looking out for their interests, rather than lining them up to be fleeced like we basically have now) would be an improvement. However we get there.

[Cosmocat]

58. It would go the same way the POTUS election of 2016 and the SC battle went

Republicans have been fighting all of these battles for DECADES while Democrats have been playing the Washiington Generals to their Harlem Globetrotters.

The results of a constitutional convention would be mirror what has happened the last two years - Rs focused 100 percent, playing to win, playing dirty, cheating, lying stealing. While Democrats are all over the place, and playing gentlemans rules.

When the dust settled, we 45 would be POTUS for life, his family named royalty, etc.