Liberals Calling for a Constitutional Convention Are Delusional

[octoberlib]

BY CHARLES P. PIERCE



​Long ago, when I was but a pup in the alternative press, Ronald Reagan gave a speech in which he seemed to advocate a new constitutional convention to fix the problems he had been handed by Mr. Madison and the rest of the powdered-wig set of the mid-18th century. I wrote an overlong piece about what a terrible idea this was, largely because, as Mr. Madison himself recognized, because he'd hijacked one himself, there is no controlling such a convention once it is called. Everything is up for grabs. In 1789, the country went into such a convention with an Articles Of Confederation and came out of it with a Constitution and, ultimately, a Bill of Rights. In 2015, given the state of our political elites, who knows what such a gathering would produce? I, for one, would rather not find out.

Therefore, it's distressing to discover that there is increasingly on the progressive side a call for an "Article V convention" to respond to the disastrous effects of the legalized influence-peddling that the current Supreme Court has established as a human right in our politics. This is just as authentically terrible an idea as it was when Reagan proposed it, and for all of the same reasons, plus one new one. A constitutional convention in the era of Citizens United is a self-nullifying proposition. The people who would be sent as delegates to that convention overwhelmingly would be state legislators and local politicians who are products of the very system you are trying to change. There is a reason why we visit the states in the shebeen here every Thursday. All of the merry pranksters that make that weekly survey such a joy would be the people who would be working a convention in which every provision of the current Constitution would be up for grabs. You want, say, Paul LePage or Pat McCrory rewriting the Fourteenth Amendment on birthright citizenship? You want Michelle Fiore, delegate from Nevada, taking the shears to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regarding the rights of a criminal defendant? Because that's what you will get. There is no way to avoid it.


http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a38963/liberals-calling-for-constitutional-convention/

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. He's right. That would be a Pandora's Box kinda thing.

Who knows what ugly shit could creep out of it, considering the nutballs that populate the state legislatures these days.

[Warpy]

2. The appallingly destructive Citizens United ruling

can be overturned by an amendment reiterating that corporations and money are property and free speech belongs to actual human beings who have the power of speech.

Calling for a Constitutional Convention at this point in our history would be incredibly destructive.

[octoberlib]

3. I agree . We'll probably end up with a theocratic, authoritarian form of government.

[cascadiance]

4. Yep, a convention is dangerous, but there are a number of amendments that are long overdue...

The one overturning judicial activist notions of corporate personhood and money being "free speech" that is what move to amend is one thing.

But along with that, we should also look at a decent amendment to the 4th amendment to bring it in to the 20th century to protect our privacy rights over so much more personal data that is outside of the physical space of our home that was the way this amendment was originally written. I think that is especially important to be coupled with the corporate personhood amendment too, since many corporations like facebook or google will throw up their hands and say that they can no longer protect our online data any more since they will be ruled as no longer persons with the rights to protect that online data, and government can then snoop however it pleases. To avoid that split (which the corporate sector probably WANTS to happen with us to keep a corporate personhood amendment from happening or staying), we need to make sure that our rights of online privacy are defended, and leverage existing case law and decisions for copyright ownership to help establish ownership of privacy of online data too in a similar fashion.

Another amendment that probably doesn't need to be coupled with these, but is needed now is one that gives us all the RIGHT to vote, which wasn't put in the original constitution to avoid giving those rights to women and slaves then. We NEED that now, especially with the voting rights act being gutted by SCOTUS recently, and to avoid the SCOTUS decision of 2000 happening again depriving us of a process that establishes what all Americans and those citizens in Florida truly voted for, and ensuring that all with the rights to vote were able to do so.

If we could define a convention with some rules up front that it is only there to discuss and pass or not pass those amendments that are defined beforehand, to avoid a minority of individuals deciding for the rest of us in a messed up manner, then something like that might be worth considering, but a no holds barred convention where there are no limits as to what can be put in as a new amendment should definitely be avoided.

[Octafish]

5. Why would choosing delegates necessarily fall on big whigs?

That's what the phone book is for. You can pick 535 people from the phone book at random and get a better Congress, guaranteed.

Select all delegates at random, like for jury duty. A Congress of Your Peers.

[octoberlib]

8. The majority of US states are Republican controlled.

The Governor and legislators would probably be involved in picking delegates. Even if they aren't, they will make sure their people go, believe me.

[Recursion]

11. That's how the ancient Athenians did it

Legislative service by lottery, like jury duty today (and for that matter the legislature was also the only criminal jury).

The results were mixed, particularly if you don't like the taste of hemlock.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Although, never happening before in US history, the specific rules and procedures

for the Article V convention aren't completely known, any amendments proposed would still need to be
ratified by 3/4ths (38) of the states.

[madinmaryland]

9. We are all overlooking one important issue in this discussion...

It is the United States Supreme Court who determines what the US Constitution says. Theirs and theirs alone. We can all say what we think it says, but the ultimate decision lays with the USSC. Period.

What this means is that which ever way the USSC leans is the way the Constitution will be interpreted. Just remember, had Al Gore been elected in 2000, none of these issues would be arising. ELECTIONS MATTER.

Citizens United loses 5-4 or 6-3.
Same with Hobby Lobby and on and on and on...

There will never be any constitutional amendment passed in the foreseeable future, given the extreme political divisions in this country. Short of an extreme calamity nothing will happen in regards to constitutional amendments or conventions

[Recursion]

12. A Constitutional convention could change that

I could easily see a convention today referring disputes as to a law's constitutionality or meaning back to the originating body rather than a court.

[MFrohike]

14. Actually, no

Contrary to popular belief, the court is NOT the final authority on the constitution. It's treated as such on a regular basis, but that don't make it true. The other two branches, which it snidely derides as the "political" branches, both have the power and responsibility to interpret the constitution. The power of the court lies in the acquiescence of the elected branches of the national government, not in any actual constitutional grant of power. They have full power to interpret the constitution, as they are both fully equal branches of the national government AND they both have something the court lacks: democratic legitimacy.

Congress can restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the court and the executive can refuse to follow its orders. Congress can also change the size of the court or impeach and remove its members. There are some checks on its authority. The issue is that the elected branches have repeatedly refused to use these checks repeatedly over the last two centuries. Those checks, as was seen during the court-packing fight, are quite powerful in making the court into a rubber stamp for another branch's interpretation of the constitution (the removal of Samuel Chase is also instructive).

The problem with the court is that the elected branches are quite content to punt to the court and then use it as an excuse if it decides against them. If Congress was ever serious about reining in the court, we'd have a list of ex-justices a mile long. If a president was ever serious about "unconstitutional" decisions by the court, he'd refuse to obey their orders. After all, the executive has the authority to interpret the constitution under Article 2 and has no responsibility to carry out truly unconstitutional court orders. The mere facts that none of this has happened is a strong indication that the problem lies in the elected branches, not the inheritors of Dred Scott and Plessy.

[Gothmog]

10. A constitutional amendment could be a very bad idea

[NYC Liberal]

13. The writer realizes that such a convention only proposes amendments,

and that any such proposals have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states...right?

The purpose of such a convention is to allow the people/states to propose amendments if Congress refuses to. It would simply take the place of congress in the amendment process.

[ibegurpard]

15. Who the hell is calling for a convention?

Fuck that...we just need an anendment.

[octoberlib]

17. Wolf pac

To restore true, representative democracy in the United States by pressuring our State Legislators to pass a much needed Free and Fair Elections Amendment to our Constitution. There are only 2 ways to amend the Constitution. (1) Go through our Federal Government (2) Go through our State Legislators via an amendments convention of the states.

Wolf PAC believes that we can no longer count on our Federal Government to do what is in the best interest of the American people due to the unfettered amount of money they receive from outside organizations to fund their campaigns. We point to the failure of the Disclose Act as rock solid evidence that this would be a total waste of our time, effort, and money. We also point to the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to not even hear a case filed by Montana claiming it did not have to abide by Citizens United, as proof that state legislation is not a sufficient measure to solve this problem. We believe that we have no choice but to put an amendment in the hands of our State Legislators, who are not, at this moment in time, completely blinded by the influence of money, and might actually do what 96% of the country wants - take away the massive influence that money has over our political process.

http://www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan


Wolf Pac was founded by Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.

I don't understand why they put all their hopes on state legislators. GOP state legislators are even crazier than they are in the US Congress and just as bought.

[Jim Lane]

16. There are two bad amendments that might actually be ratified.

There's sentiment on the left for amendments overturning Citizens United, protecting voting rights, protecting reproductive rights, and modifying or repealing the Second Amendment. There's sentiment on the right for outlawing same-sex marriage and abortion (or at least leaving those questions up to the states) and repealing the Seventeenth Amendment (popular election of Senators). I doubt that any such amendment could be ratified, given that 13 states could block ratification.

What could get through a convention and then the state ratification process would be two amendments that stepped outside the left-right division and instead exploited the federal-state division: requiring a federal balanced budget, and Congressional term limits. The balanced budget would let state legislators vote for fiscal rectitude (as far too many voters see it) but without having to do anything unpopular like raising taxes or cutting spending. Congressional term limits would create open seats that might be filled by, guess who, state legislators ambitious to move up.

I think both those amendments would be bad ideas, so I'm very much against a convention.

[frizzled]

18. Change will never happen, since it needs to be ratified by nearly 100 assemblies

It's designed this way. The constitution is a blueprint for a plutocracy. Only way out of this is with a cigarette lighter.