Is it time for a Constitutional Convention?

[FlyingSquirrel]

"That's because Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) is holding these pro forma sessions to keep Bush from making recess appointments. Under the Constitution, the president is empowered to make temporary appointments when the Senate is out of session, a provision intended to keep government going in the days when lawmakers had to ride horseback to come to town. In modern times, presidents have used breaks to install nominees who otherwise would not be confirmed."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122407B.shtml

Just one of the MANY things in the Constitution which are outdated, outmoded, don't make sense in modern times. In my opinion.

So why keep battling it out in courts over what the original intent of the Founders was? Why keep having to do strange maneuvers to prevent arcane provisions from allowing things not originally intended to occur? Why not take the current Constitution as a starting point and battle it all out at the same time now? Clearly the Constitution is under attack as never before. Should we keep defending it or should we re-make it?

Edit: Many may be confused as to what may be involved in a possible Constitutional Convention. The following link would be a good starting point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment_to_U.S._Constitution

[MonkeyFunk]

1. only if you want outlaw abortion

ban gay marriage, require a balanced budget, and enshrine christianity as the national religion.

[Adsos Letter]

8. Agreed...don't EVEN let them open that Pandora's Box...

...just sayin'...

[terrya]

10. Bingo

I don't even want to think of the nasty Pandora's Box that would be opened if a Constitutional Convention were to occur. I know for a fact that banning abortion and same-sex marriage (and civil unions and domestic partnerships and any legal recognition of same-sex relationships) would be very real possibilities.

[panader0]

2. Let's see who our president will be.

Can you imagine what changes bush would have made? His abuse of the constitution is bad enough as it is. Although I'm sure we'll have a Dem in the white house, let's wait until then. The example you mentioned is truly outmoded, but for the most part, I think a constitutional convention should uphold 99% of the world's greatest political document. It should be a constitutional celebration.

[AndyTiedye]

5. Huckabee and the Dominionists Want to Do Away With the Constitution Altogether

We know what form of government they want

[MonkeyFunk]

15. Presidents have no role in a constitutional convention

[annabanana]

16. Presidents are beside the point, even THIS eternally meddlesome one.

I don't want the papers diddled with, especially during the multinational corporate hegemony that we're living through right now...

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Warning: Unintended consequences if there is another constitutional convention.

1. Abolishment of all the provisions in the First Amendment (Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly).

2. Abolishment of some of or all of the Bill of Rights (self-incrimination, due process, unreasonable searches, right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishment, well-armed militia)

3. Abolishment of the 14th Amendment (equal protection of the laws, the Bill of Rights being applicable to the states).

In short, you could create a fascist state with one constitutional convention.

Are we sure we want to go there?

[FlyingSquirrel]

4. I haven't voted yet. ;-) But see below:

Constitutional scholars are divided as to how a national, amendment-proposing convention would function procedurally, and whether such a convention would be limited to the one subject for which it was summoned or whether delegates could expand the agenda as they might see fit.<13>

Opponents of a convention assert "There is no consensus as to whether or not the convention would have the power to simply disavow the Constitution altogether and propose replacing it with an entirely new document and that it is worth noting that such an outcome would be similar to what happened when the Convention of 1787 ended up writing the current Constitution. That convention was called for the purpose of revising the earlier Articles of Confederation, but it chose instead to abandon the articles in favor of a completely new document."

However, these opponents fail to note that the 1787 convention was authorized by the Articles of Confederation, an act of Congress, and votes by the states; and that under this act of Congress any action taken by the 1787 convention was invalid unless ratified by both a vote of Congress and the states.<14>

As then, so now: anything that emerges from a Article V convention is merely a proposal, without force or effect until ratified by the states. Under Article V three-fourths of the states (38 of 50) are the minimum necessary to ratify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment_to_U.S._Constitution

Edit: Ok I've voted, choosing the second option. I think a lot of people are thinking of the 2008 election as I am when I chose it. However, I'm not actually sure it matters who the President is in the case of a Constitutional Convention because the Executive Branch doesn't seem to really be involved. It's not like a president would have veto power, and with there being a minimum of three-fourths of the states needed to ratify it, I would have to say any fears of some new fascist state arising are unfounded.

Still... yeah, it'd make me feel better to have a Democratic President in the WH as it was unfolding.

[lumberjack_jeff]

19. No shit. Look around.

Who in their right mind thinks that todays leaders could create a better one.

[Selatius]

6. I propose peaceful dissolution of the Union. Not a popular suggestion, I know, but...

I honestly don't think the Founding Fathers would tolerate the current situation of money buying politics. Sure, money has always been intertwined in political affairs since the beginning, but 200 years ago, corporations did not exist with the kind of power they possess today. They were far more tightly regulated. Today, that has completely changed.

Today, a laborer can be taxed more heavily than a man who derives most of his money from investments. This is basically taxing the poor more heavily than the rich. That's unjust, and that's one of the aggravating factors behind the French Revolution.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. I agree. It's the only way to restore some modicum of power to the people.

The founders could not possibly foresee a nation of 300 million people bound and ruled by a group of corporations where the politicians serve as middlemen beholden to those that give them power.

We now face a vicious circle of depending on politicians who can only achieve meaningful power with the aid of the corporations. In order to get into office they must kowtow to the corporate bosses. When in office, they must continue to do so or lose office.

It would be a revolutionary shift to live in a nation where "the vital national interests" are the welfare of the people rather than profit of the few.

The "balance of power" has become meaningless because it leaves out the group with the most real power, the one that writes the checks to the candidates and dictates the amount of change possible.

[FreepFryer]

7. No way I'm letting ANYONE put new ink in the Constitution. We're WAY too ignorant nowadays.

There are wolves at the door and most Americans have lost the ability (or indeed, the desire) to recognize the danger. It would be incredibly ill-timed to choose this same moment to replace the doorframe.

[Fovea]

9. So many radio-head conservatives

suddenly get a lot more progressive when you pin them down to specifics.

The contract for governance has been put substantially in abeyance by a phantom menace. The checks and balances have been subverted. The military, foreseen by the framers as a national defense force, has become our chief instrument of foreign policy.

We are currently without habeas corpus and are not in a state of siege or insurrection.

Substantially, the contract between the government and the governed is void and unenforceable. Another way we can all agree on must be forged, and some blood will doubtless be shed in the process. But to do otherwise is to invite, for the fee of a bit of temporary illusory stability, a future dystopia that no one would wish on their children.

It is that, or the third possibility of the dissolution of the US. It is not actually being governed currently. It is being plundered.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Yes. Government of, by, and for, the corporations needs to be overthrown.

Alas, the politicians who would have to bring about a constitutional convention are selected by the bosses who run the country.

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. Ah, but that's exactly why Article V was included!

The framers of the Constitution wanted a means whereby to bypass a potentially unwilling Congress in the amendment-proposing process. They thought that there could be circumstances in which Congress, for self-serving reasons, would ignore valid pleas to amend the Constitution. And so the framers established an alternate means of proposing change in the Constitution.

At the outset many of the Framers were loath to give Congress a monopoly over the amending process. On May 29, 1787, the Virginia Plan, the prototype from which the Constitution evolved, was introduced to the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia; it included the following resolution: "Res(olve)d. that provision ought to be made for the amendment of the Articles of Union whensoever it shall seem necessary, and that the assent of the National Legislature ought not to be required thereto." George Mason, one of Virginia’s seven delegates, argued from the floor of the Convention that it “would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account.” Mason added that, “no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive.”(5)

The purpose of the Article V convention is therefore to circumvent the federal Legislative Branch if and when it becomes incorrigibly corrupt, particularly if Congress resists rather than represents the people in their determination to enact reforms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment_to_U.S._Constitution

In other words, the STATES are the ones that convene it. Certainly, there's corruption at the state level as well; but those at the state level are also more directly responsive to the people they are governing and are usually THERE in the state instead of off at the Capitol. The people are more likely to be able to effect a change at the state level and to get their state legislators to support a Convention.

[TheUniverse]

14. The constitution is fine, but maybe certain parts need clarified.

Maybe we need to make clarification to certain parts of the constitution so there is no uncertainty. For example
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." signing statements do not count as legistlative power


"The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and
shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." we made this power for a reason


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, This includes so called "indecent speech," even over public airwaves or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and not be tased while remaining peaceful or added to secret government list of traitors, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances and not be sent to a secret government prison"



"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, This includes your right to search on Google without Alberto Gonzales randomly requesting your google records shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, Being the wrong race or religion is not probable cause supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
"

"
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and
public trial, being held in a secret government prison for 3 years while no carges are brought against you does not count as a speedy trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of
Counsel for his defence."

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
and unusual punishments inflicted. Making someone think they are gonna drown is cruel and unusual punishment "

[Initech]

17. No. Bad idea. Bad idea. Bad idea. Bad idea. Bad idea. Bad idea.

Did I mention it was a bad idea?

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. If we could get the powers that be to adhere to the current one, it'd be just fine. n/t

[Bright Eyes]

20. Not now, but perhaps soon depending on circumstances

If the 'powers that be' don't start representing the people, it may be the only recourse for any meaningful change.

[tom_paine]

21. Ideally, yes; practically speaking, no, not now not ever

1) This country has degenerated waaaay too far to ever make that possible now. We are collectively insane, and at the end of our run. Jumped the shark.

2) Because we have jumped the shark, and Bushie Propaganda has made a third of us ready to be Nazis, literal Nazis, with just the tiniest permission from authority, any major attempt to tinker would be a signal for the Royal and Loyal Bushies to finsih the job of seizing America for themselves. They are already halfway there now.

So, no, not now not ever. We must work with what we have and try to preserve it. Tearing it down and trying to rebuild it is impossible with the degenerate, cowardly and ignorant populace we have now (and I include myself and all of us in that criticism, lest anyone think I am being 'elitist' here). Try to do that would only be a signal forthe Bushies to move in for the kill, with their Penultimate and Final Solutions to the Liberal Problem, whatever that may be (I suspect we are going to find out within two decades, even if there is a short respite in 2008).

[TheWatcher]

22. No. But It Might Be Close To The Time For Something That Begins With "R."

[flashl]

23. This experiment call democracy

has proven that laws in and of themselves will not protect or maintain: A more perfect union, Domestic tranquility, Common defense, Liberty & Justice, …

With laws, the mob rules.