Turley calls for a new Constitutional Convention and

[Skidmore]

I agree with him.

http://jonathanturley.org/latest-column/

[havocmom]

1. At this point in time, with the political climate and ignorance of so many voters?

Ah, no thanks.

[NC_Nurse]

3. +1

Can't you just envision the Teabagger a'holes taking control of the debate? NO THANKS!

Too many overly loud special interests these days.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

5. I wish people would read the actual articles the OPs link to before they commented

It is embarrassing, and it happens far too often on DU.

[havocmom]

19. I wish people wouldn't assume that disagreeing means didn't read

It's embarrassing and it happens far to often on DU.

[Atticus]

42. I read the entire article and wholeheartedly agree with Havocmom.

Why would you assume she hadn't read the post?

Given the current political unreason, a Constitutional convention could result in Christianity being our official religion, English being our official language and corporations being given one vote for each dollar's worth of net asset value.

Remember, there are a lot of folks who think we should all be executed for treason. I trust them to be fair---NOT!

[Ozymanithrax]

2. I agree, but you will never get enough states to go along with the idea.

[bluestateguy]

4. I just can't get behind anything Turley says

His vigorous support for the Clinton impeachment 11 years ago still sticks in my craw. I'm still not over it.

[Enthusiast]

33. Me too.

He completely ignored the fact that it was a 50 million dollar manufactured bullshit witch hunt.

They needed to destroy Democrats so they could get Dubya in office so as to pull off "The Great Heist".

[Bill McBlueState]

6. his specific ideas

if you don't feel like reading the piece...

Remove barriers to third parties

End the practice of gerrymandering

Change the primary system

Abolish the electoral college

Require a majority for presidents to be elected

[BeFree]

9. We, the people

WE need to do this. It is our constitution and we've allowed the elites to usurp it.

We could jump start it on DU, but then you look at the stupid ass comments here and ya wonder.......

[defendandprotect]

14. I think we also have to end computer voting . . . which coincidentally

began to come in during the mid-late-1960's . . . about the time America

was passing "The Voting Rights Act" -- !!

Was there ever really a Southern Strategy -- or was their only computer hacking?

[Maru Kitteh]

37. Please explain how one electoral vote went to Obama in Chuck Hagel's very red Nebraska

Or do we only suspect mischief in the face of outcomes we do not like?

[defendandprotect]

15. IMO, these are all things that Democrats could be doing now -- ???

[hlthe2b]

24. We need to establish personhood as NATURAL persons, not corps.

I'm surprised that Turley would not have included that...

[dgibby]

32. He agreed with the majority. n/t

[hlthe2b]

36. He agreed based on his interpetation of current law...

That may well be different from his view as to whether Corps SHOULD have "personhood" rights.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Turley's a fucking racist nut.

Fuck him and his ideas.

[hlthe2b]

25. Racist? Based on what, exactly?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. His comments about black and latino people.

[hlthe2b]

29. ???? THAT is how you back up an assertion of racism?

WHAT Comments?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. These.

"But I do think that there is a problem here when we talk about temperament and empathy. You know, we are not selecting a house pet. We're selecting a Supreme Court justice and as an academic I have a certain bias. And that is does she have the intellectual throw weight to make a difference on the court? And I have to tell you the optics are better than the opinions in this case. I've read a couple of dozen of her opinions. They don't speak well to her being a nominee on the Supreme Court. She will be historic in many ways like Thurgood Marshall but I 'll remind you Thurgood Marshall was not a lasting intellectual force on the court. He was historic because he was first. And I think that a lot of academics are a little bit disappointed. I am in the sense that Diane Wood, Harold Coe, were not the ultimate people to prevail. These are people that are blazingly brilliant. They would have brought to the court intellects that would frame in the conceptual way.""

"Sotomayor lacks intellectual depth."

[Enthusiast]

34. +1 nt

[hlthe2b]

35. I missed his comments on Sotomayor...

Disturbing, I agree.

[farmout rightarm]

39. I think he was just stating facts. Marshall was no giant of intellect and neither is Sotomayor.

Doesn't mean they were not or are not qualified to serve. Maybe he should have used Clarance Thomas instead.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. K&R

[defendandprotect]

10. As long as the only competitition the Democrats have is the neo-fascist GOP . . .

they will continue to move to the right --

We have to strengthen third parties and provide a IRV option --

We also have to stop the two-party tyranny which gives them control over

what happens with third parties -- and their private corporation which controls

the debates!!

[Winterblues]

11. We can't/won't even follow the one we have now so why change it?

It is after all only a "goddamn piece of paper".

[Bonhomme Richard]

12. My understanding is once a convention convenes everything is

open to change.
I may be wrong but if I am right then I don't want the lunatics removing what is good.

[amandabeech]

26. It has never happened and the Constitution doesn't address the issue.

Way back in the mists of time when I attended law school, there were debates on whether a convention could be limited to one topic, as Turley stated.

Really, it would be a big gamble, and a lot of lawyers would have to do a lot of work beforehand to make sure that the convention did not careen out of control into a lot of other issues.

Turley did not mention the possibility of a constitutional amendment to provide for public funding, and public funding only, for campaigns for federal office. Obviously, I've not given the idea as much thought and research time as Turley, but I wonder why he did not include it in his list of reforms.

[defendandprotect]

40. When we have something as flimsy in law as Prop 8 LIMITING rights of human beings ...

I think we have to always have in mind that there should be no proposition and no

amendment -- or no change to the Constitution which ever does anything but EXPAND

human rights!!

[amandabeech]

43. Yes, I have no objection to expanding rights.

Personally, I'd like a specific provision declaring that women and men should be considered equal.

I support your position, too.

[defendandprotect]

44. Exactly . . .

:)

[Uzybone]

13. Good ideas, fantasy of course, but its always easy when all you do is write

Ho does Turley plan on us getting this Constitutional Convention? Or is that someone else's job?

[farmout rightarm]

16. I agree with his suggested reforms but I'm awfully nervous about doing it that way.

Almost anything is potentially on the table at a CC, and it's for sure some of them wouldn't be good.
:shrug:

[dtotire]

17. I Like This Idea

Abolish the electoral college. The college’s current role in our system is uniformly negative and dysfunctional. It allows someone to be elected president even if his or her opponent gets more popular votes, as happened with George W. Bush in the 2000 election. This leads to serious questions of legitimacy. More important, it helps the two parties control entire states, because in states that are solidly red or blue, the opposing parties and candidates rarely invest much time or money campaigning given that they are clearly not going to get the electoral votes in the end. If there were direct voting for presidents, candidates would have good reason to campaign hard to grab pockets of, say, Democrats in Salt Lake City or Republicans in downstate New York.

Require a majority for presidents to be elected. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, there should be a runoff of the two top vote-getters — as is the custom in most other nations. This would tend to force candidates to reach out to third parties and break up monopoly control of the two parties.


This could be done with a simple amendment.

[Snow Bird]

18. FTA: "To be successful,

a convention would have to be limited to addressing political reforms and not get sidetracked by divisive issues such as same-sex marriage or abortion."

And there is the problem with these unrealistic, periodic calls for a constitutional convention.

How do you limit the convention to just the "good stuff" we want?

[zipplewrath]

21. You can't

Many folks over the years have advocated getting rid of the Constitutional Convention provision (or con-con as they are often called). It was basically done one other time, and it got rid of the Articles of Confederation and formed the Constitution we have today. As such, they saw fit to provide for that ability again. However, just as then, there is no limit on what a con-con can do, nor anyway to limit it as such. They can propose anything they want and the states can approve it. The entirety of the constitution would be gone. When it happened last time, it replaced roughly 8-10 years of government and its associated laws and traditions. Today, you'd be replacing potentially 250+ years of laws.

[enlightenment]

22. And the chances of a major overhaul of that kind is slim to none.

You cannot compare the states (or the society) of the 18th century with what we have today.

Hell, ratification of Constitutional amendments is rare - do you honestly think that the conservative states will be able to muster a 3/4 majority to ratify anything that comes of a constitutional convention?

"The entirety of the constitution would be gone." Blatant, fearful hyperbole.

[MadHound]

45. You might be surprised,

A number of very conservative thinkers along with a goodly number of conservatives would love a constitutional convention. After all, they think that they and their issues can come out ahead as well.

[Uzybone]

23. By blogging about it of course

Turley has the secret.

[Kingofalldems]

20. It will be invaded by corporatists claiming to represent the teabaggers.

[FarCenter]

27. Getting rid of tha two party system and introducing additional parties wouldn't be good

Actually, the problem now is the lack of party discipline. The two parties, especially the Democrats, have multiple factions within the party, there is no party discipline, and nothing gets done.

The two party system, inherited from Great Britian, is designed so that the legislature cannot be roadblocked. If one party has a majority of 1 or more, then it can pass legislation, assuming party discipline so that all its members vote alike.

Deciding what legislation to pass is the job of the party caucus. If a majority of the caucus back a piece of legislation, the caucus can put it to the floor and vote it in, again assuming that discipline holds.

Therefore, in a two party system with party discipline, it only takes 26% of the legislators consitituting a majority of the majority party to pass legislation.

The problem is that the Democratic leadership either no longer has, or is no longer using, the tools necessary to enforce party discipline.

[dgibby]

31. Well, this is going to give the Magistrate something to fight for!

The only time I ever saw the Magistrate really upset was when he was posting about Turley. It was a thing of beauty!

[Posteritatis]

38. I shudder at the idea of an American constitutional convention in this day and age. (nt)

[struggle4progress]

41. Turley's seeking attention, not thinking. Corporate forces would steam-roll us flat

[Cleita]

47. Read up on how we got the first Constitution.

If our founding fathers had failed, steamrolling would have been the least of their problems. The British justice system would have had something more interesting in mind for them like being drawn and quartered and other wonderful punishments for treason. The did it anyway.

[dflprincess]

48. The founders took all the risks with the Declaratoin of Independence

the Constitution was not ratified until 1787.

I'm not willing to risk opening up the Constitution so it can be rewritten by corporate stooges and there is no guarantee that a convention could be limited to just a few issues.

[Cleita]

49. You do have a point there.

It would have to be done by real patriots, which means it would probably have to be done underground.

[struggle4progress]

50. Ambient political forces would control any Constitutional Convention: whoever

is organized enough to win current political fights would win fights at such a Convention. If we're not seeing big victories in Congress and in the States on environmental protection, gay or consumer or worker rights, limiting corporate power, and so on, then a Convention will serve the wrong interests

[Cleita]

46. I thought we needed one a decade ago, but better late than never.

Our Constitution is still fine as far as I'm concerned but it needs a lot of updating. We have evolved into an industrial and now technological civilization that could destroy not only humanity but the world as we know it. This is something the writers of our Constitution, as brilliant as they were, couldn't have foreseen and they left things somewhat vague to accommodate change, but now we need it. A Constitutional Convention doesn't mean that we get rid of the one we have but that we update it and make it better.