Is it time for a Constitutional Convention ?

[jaysunb]

It has been 219 years since the framers met in Philadelphia and forged one of the most idealistic and enduring documents, our Constitution, and while the basic tenets of that document has served this country well, there have been times that it's practical applications have not met the realities of the world we now live in.
I doubt the framers could possibly have envisioned the advances in technology, medicine, growth of population and geography of this country or the rest of the world for that matter, and how these thing would effect their vision for American success at self governance.
Over the years I've heard plenty of cliches alluding to the documents perfection and as a " living " and elastic organism, and as such, needing no alterations. Well, I beg to differ....

Although the basic tenets are unmatched in mankind's history, it was a flawed document in the beginning and those flaws, such as , Blacks being only 3/5Th's of a human, white land owners being the only eligible voters, the complete exclusion of women and their rights as an individual or participant society, to name a few. Yes, some things have been corrected in practice, but the failure to physically strike these things is--for me at least-- is tacit approval of it's content.

Any mention of any deviation or updating of the document is looked upon with abhorrence approaching near hysteria, especially by those who benefit most by keeping the status quo. But here in the 21st century, we are faced with some arcane solutions to the basic fundementals of our republic....the first, second and fourth amendments quickly come mind as places that need to be modified or updated to address todays reality.

I'd like to hear what others think about this.

[robertarctor]

1. Not with these neocon c*cks*ckers driving the bus, it isn't.

Are you crazy?

[jaysunb]

4. I guess I should have added

AFTER WE TAKE BACK CONGRESS .

But I also should have been clear that these things have to be done by citizens of all stripes. Credibly people that would present a vision that could be ratified.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Since the Constitution was ratified, there has been no convention

Even though the Constitution allows for a convention to amend (and theoretically replace) the existing constitution.

The first challenge would be to come up with a protocol and set of rules by which a convention would be called. That alone, methinks, would scuttle the proposition.

[jaysunb]

24. Could the framers have thought of that possibility ?

thus making it more difficult ?

They seemed to have most scenarios well thought out and provided for.....

[TechBear_Seattle]

33. I think the allowance in the US Constitution was made...

Because of the questions over whether the Constitution, itself, was legal. The Articles of Confederation, the original US government which was in effect during the Revolutionary War, had no provisions for amendment. Although all of the states eventually ratified the new government, there was considerable concern over whether replacing the Articles was itself an act of treason against the existing government.

I think "amendment by convention" was implemented as a last-resort fail-safe, and one that was never meant to be used.

[linazelle]

42. What you said. nt

[ananda]

2. good idea but only if...

... enlightened humanists, including women, are attending the convention.

No neocons or fundie theocrats, pullezzzzeee.

[shance]

3. That's a great idea*

It would be great to have a convention in every state at the same time and have them hooked up via satellite.

Pretty powerful.

[rpannier]

5. My problem with a new convention is

You would have one of two scenarios that would play out:

1. There would be so much pandering going on that nothing would get done so they'd just quit and keep the original.

or;

The document would be hundreds of pages thick as the 'delegates' would attempt to get their own personal agenda through. "Marriage defined as man and woman" would probably be in there. "No flag burning" also. "Prayer in public schools" most likely would find it's way in, as the document would probably have some sort of mention of America being a Christian or Judeo-Christian nation. Who knows what else would get in.

[Selatius]

10. That's a very, very valid fear, especially your 2nd point. In fact...

The size of the document was the primary reason the French people voted to reject the EU Constitution. Nevermind the complaints by the left that it was enshrining neoliberal economic ideology into law.

I'd simply recommend re-adopting the Constitution with some changes, not junking it completely.

[jaysunb]

18. Agreed

I don't mean to imply it should be scrapped and start from the begining, but a very narrow focus on key issues that take into account where we are today.

[Terran1212]

25. Plus it might just be considered treasonous.

[sweetheart]

6. Not yet

The bastille hasn't been stormed and robespierre has not done his tricks.

Until then, prison plantation permutations project punative patiarchy.

[Buns_of_Fire]

7. Be careful what you wish for...

The idea probably has merit, but I'd want to see how the delegates would be selected first, and what could be debated and what's off-limits. It could conceivably open a very large can of worms and wind up leaving us worse off than we are now. Just MHO.

[-..__...]

8. Sure... I'll play.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Removes any doubt or quibble about civilian firearms ownership. Besides, the concept of a civilian militia is outdated since the National Guard fills the role of the "security of a free State".

[Selatius]

9. I'd be in favor of one; introduce a little more democracy in the US

We should re-adopt the Constitution except

1. Eliminate the Electoral College and elect the president through popular vote.

2. Give citizens the ability, through petitions, to recall House/Senate legislators if they have done something to offend the will of the people.

3. Give citizens the ability, through petitions, to challenge legislative action if the legislature has done something contrary to the interests of the people.

4. Give citizens the ability, through petitions, to bypass the legislature and pass laws directly if Congress proves recalcitrant, delinquent, etc. in carrying out the will of the people.

5. Give citizens the ability, through petitions, to recall sitting presidents.

When it comes to removing legislators and presidents, for example, you should be given the right to lodge a petition half-way through a particular legislator's term. If you are able to gain enough signatures equal to, for example, two-thirds the number of votes the particular legislator won in the last election, then a recall referendum will be set within, say, 90 days of the certification of the petition. If 60 percent of all votes are in favor of removal of that legislator, then that legislator's term ends immediately, and a new election will be set to fill the seat.

[jaysunb]

29. That's what I'm talking about !

:toast:

[PADemD]

34. Recalling Elected Officials

I think just about every American wishes they could do this. 
Can we start a movement to get these added as amendments to
the constitution?  How many signatures are need to initiate?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

11. You don't change horses in midstream

That document has worked beautifully for more than two centuries, and it is perfectable, so that's why amendments have been added.

But, if you think it's the Constitution that needs changing, you are aiming at the very document that will prove to be our salvation, just as it always has been.

Take back Congress, elect a Democrat as President, and leave the Constitution alone.

It's doing its job, even if you can't see it. It's the most brilliant document ever conceived by the human mind, in my humble opinion.

Of course, I've been a Constitutional lawyer for over 30 years, so I'm a bit biased.

[jaysunb]

37. I;ve been waiting for you to weigh in here......LOL !

Maybe it's not the Constitution itself, but the language. Maybe a tweak to reflect todays realities...like, I'm not 3/5ths of a human. How does it help to leave that in place. Why can't arcane things be struck. Further, would it not be helpful to address the entire document in hope of the populace taking notice and having a conversation , even if we change nothing ???

[OldLeftieLawyer]

39. You ever read the Amendments?

That's why they're there.

The Constitution IS language. And the way it's interpreted is reflective of the changes in our society through the years.

Hence, its brilliance.

There's a great book called "The History Of American Law," by a guy named Friedman. Lawrence Friendman, as I recall. There's a lot of background there that reflects on the Constitution, and also shows you how every facet of American law is interwoven into the rubric of the Constitution. You'd enjoy this book, and I heartily recommend it. It's a joyous and informative read, should be required reading for every sentient American. And the non-sentients, too, I suppose.

Look at the Congress, at the Executive Branch, at the Judiciary, and then at ourselves.

We are the power, we elect these people, and we have to get off our asses and get to work, starting at the grassroots level, where the legislators start.

Your definite of "arcane" is probably not mine, so whose definition prevails, and how? And why? And who decides what's to be used in place of the 'arcane" language?

Get to work on electing the right people, and the Constitution will continue to be the most exciting and dynamic document extant in this world.

[jaysunb]

47. I think this may apply....

Poor government comes about when good citizens sit on their hands instead of standing on their feet.'
-- Robert Baker

I'll get the book. Thanks for the suggestion.

[dflprincess]

12. No way

Do honestly think the First, Fourth or Fifth amendments would survive a Constitutional Convention? Just because this administration is ignoring the one we have doesn't make it a good idea to write a new one.

[Toucano]

13. A new convention would break up the United States.

I really don't think we could get all the states to agree on a lot of issues.

[Selatius]

19. Would a dissolution be so bad in the end?

A stable nation is generally one where broad consensus can be reached on a great many issues, and if that is no longer true, then the nation will probably disintegrate later anyway. A Convention would simply be a peaceful exit vs. risking a not so peaceful exit later on in time.

[Toucano]

30. But there's no guarantee a dissolution by convention would be peaceful.

The union is more of a commercial endeavor than a political one. Once the division of resources and assets starts, it could get very messy.

I've frequently considered that the current system is out of date and doesn't work, but until there's a solid plan on the table, I'd be loathe to call a convention.

[Selatius]

40. Maybe. Maybe not. The Soviet Union dissolved mostly peacefully

If we talk about governance of any sort on such a large scale, then there's always the risk of conflict. That's the nature of politics.

[Toucano]

44. Not quite

The wars in the Balkans were a direct result of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In Chechnya, 200,000 people are estimated to have been killed.

Ethnic cleansing and civil war in Georgia, conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, millions of people displaced.

That's mostly peacefully?

Rather than "there is always risk of conflict", it might be more accurate to say there is always conflict.

[Selatius]

45. Those cases are bad, but the Balkan situation predated Soviet influence

Yugoslavia, much like Iraq, is an artificial creation that cobbled together several different ethnic/religious groups. Like Iraq, Yugoslavia was held together by a strong-arm dictator, and when he died, the nation splintered only a few years after. To say it was a problem of the dissolution of the USSR is to ignore past enmity in that corner of the world.

Nations like East Germany, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and many more left Soviet orbit without widespread warfare and conflict. Several of them even gave up their nuclear stockpiles and gave them to Russia or destroyed them. Czechoslovakia broke in half without violent conflict, and East Germany merged with West Germany peacefully and willingly.

I still stand by my assertion the dissolution of the Soviet Union was largely peaceful. I never said it was completely peaceful. I would say it's peaceful when compared to a hypothetical civil war for power in the lands of the USSR.

[pooja]

14. Not a Good Idea

In the beginning, the framers understood that over time ideas, situations, etc would change. This is why we can make constitutional ammendments. I do believe messing with the core of our foundation would erode whatever sence of America that we have left. There is a reason that we have 3 branches of gov't. These branches, while flawed, are the true means to which we judge our nations foundation. The legislative branch is there to make law. The executive branch is there to see that the laws are abided. And the judicial is there to ensure that the constitution is not being infringed upon. If there is a constitutional ammendment there are procedures in which each state votes to either accept or deny the ammendment. If someone does not like the way a constitutional addresses and issue, they need to make sure that the representative that they elect will follow through with the "people" wishes. The other branches are in place to ensure that these issues are not "mob" mentality.

I do not argue that the people in power are often times crooks. But tearing the foundation of our entire gov't. will truely send us spiraling into a nation of sovereign rule. Let the foundation support the house and let the house be filled with wisdom.

[jaysunb]

20. Welcome to DU

You are right in many ways, but I must remind you of the ERA ratification that failed, but opened up minds and doors to womens rights, so while a CC may not be ratified, it would certainly move the conversation more to the people instead of where it is now...in the hands of those who don't care about anything other than themselves.

Again, WELCOME :hi:

[treestar]

15. Not now, what would end up getting amended?

With some of the people around now, it's hard to see anything good happen. They'd do away with the Bill of Rights gladly.

The present population is so ignorant and ungrateful, that the 219 year old document is better than what they'd come up with.

[SeaBob]

16. Constitutional Convention

There are many people who would be worthy to present at a constitution convention from both democratic and republican parties. I have several fears about such a move at this time. That, however, does not mean that a constitutional convention should not go ahead, it just means I have fears about it
My fears are
1) Special interest groups would dominate the convention i.e. defense contractors, the drug lobby.

2) It would denigrate into a shouting match and nothing would get accomplished

3) Minority parties would be excluded

4) the religious right or the Neocons would dominate

anyway those are a few of my fears about having a constitutional convention "now"

I think if we could get the backbone campaign agenda introduced I would feel much better about it. Check it out at www.backbonecampaign.org

[jaysunb]

48. I wouldn't too many politicians involved.

I'd like to see intteligent & patrotic people much like the original crew.

[Odin2005]

17. We should switch to a parliamentary system.

Something similar to the German constitution would be nice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Germany

[Biernuts]

27. If we had a parlimentary system...

Bill Clinton would have been sent packing and Prime Minister Gingrich would have taken over in January 1995.

[Selatius]

41. If by parliamentary he means proportional representation, then no

There would have been a run-off election between the top two candidates as no one won a majority of the vote.

[Odin2005]

43. I ment Parliamentary with PR.

Most other Western nations us a parliamentary system that has worked just fine. I don't like Presidential system, until * the US was the only democracy with a Presidential system that didin't degenerate into despotism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_System

The features of a parliamentary system

The executive branch of a parliamentary government is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government, but parliamentarianism has also been practised with privy councils. The prime minister and the ministers of the cabinet typically have their background in the parliament and may remain members thereof while serving in cabinet. The leader of the leading party, or group of parties, in the parliament is often appointed as the prime minister. In many countries, the cabinet, or single members thereof, can be removed by the parliament through a vote of no confidence. In addition, the executive can often dissolve the parliament and call extraordinary elections. Under the parliamentary system the roles of head of state and head of government are more or less separated. In most parliamentary systems, the head of state is primarily a ceremonial position, often a monarch or president, retaining duties that aren't politically divisive, such as appointments of civil servants. In many parliamentary systems, the head of state may have reserve powers which are usable in a crisis. In most cases however, such powers are (either by convention or by constitutional rule) only exercised upon the advice and approval of the head of government.

Because the executive is directly related to the legislature, some argue the executive is actually more accountable than many fixed term presidential systems, as the executive, being linked to the legislative, can face an early election in the face of the aforementioned 'vote of no confidence'. In addition, because the executive is beholden to the legislature, it faces more direct questioning by opposition politicians than an executive would in a presidential system. It can also be argued that it's relatively easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system since the executive and the legislature are always controlled by the same party and since the executive has a greater ability to "snap the whip" and force wavering party members into alignment. Within presidential systems, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive is of a different party from those leading the legislature, then legislative activity can grind to a halt.



Advantages of a parliamentary system

Some believe that it is easier to pass legislation within a parliamentary system. This is because the executive branch is dependent upon the direct or indirect support of the legislative branch and often includes members of the legislature. In a presidential system, the executive is often chosen independently from the legislature. If the executive and legislature in such a system include members entirely or predominantly from different political parties, then stalemate can occur. Former US President Bill Clinton often faced problems in this regard, since the Republicans controlled Congress for much of his tenure as President. That being said, presidents can also face problems from their own parties, as former US President Jimmy Carter did.

In addition to quicker legislative action, Parliamentarianism has attractive features for nations that are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In a unipersonal presidential system, all executive power is concentrated in the president. In a parliamentary system, with a collegial executive, power is more divided. In the 1989 Lebanese Taif Agreement, in order to give Muslims greater political power, Lebanon moved from a semi-presidential system with a strong president to a system more structurally similar to a classical parliamentarianism. Iraq similarly disdained a presidential system out of fears that such a system would be equivalent to Shiite domination; Afghanistan's minorities refused to go along with a presidency as strong as the Pashtuns desired.

In the English Constitution, Walter Bagehot praised parliamentarianism for producing serious debates, for allowing the change in power without an election, and for allowing elections at any time. Bagehot considered the four-year election rule of the United States to be unnatural.

There is also a body of scholarship, associated with Juan Linz, Fred Riggs, Bruce Ackerman, and Robert Dahl that claims that parliamentarianism is less prone to authoritarian collapse. These scholars point out that since World War II, two-thirds of Third World countries establishing parliamentary governments successfully transitioned to democracy. By contrast, no Third World presidential system successfully transitioned to democracy without experiencing coups and other constitutional breakdowns. As Bruce Ackerman says of the thirty countries to have experimented with American checks and balances, “All of them, without exception, have succumbed to the nightmare one time or another, often repeatedly.”

A recent World Bank study found that parliamentary systems are associated with lower corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_Representation

[FloridaPat]

22. It's time for a new gov't. Our Constitution allows us to dissolve

our gov't if it no longer ruled by the governed in their best intersts.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[Sgent]

23. We don't need a convention to enact changes

The entire document can be ammended (and has been). The ONLY thing that is protected is that you can't mess with the powers & makeup of the Senate w/o an affirmitive vote by EACH of the state legislatures.

Remember that a con convention is called by the states, and the state legislatures will decide the delegates. Since there are more conservative states than liberal ones (although population is inverse), we would wind up with a much more conservative constitution.

[pooja]

26. The constitution is made for the people by the people

If people are concerned with the direction of the US of A, they need to use their brains when they elect officials to represent them. There has to be reform amongst the way we elect these great leaders, no doubt about it. term limits have got to be set for congressional leaders. we need a multiple party system to provide more checks and balances... i opt for a green party. there are definate reforms that need to happen... but do you think anyone who is in charge right now will actually let this happen... special interests rule the way and for the most part always have. we just weren't around to bitch about it then.

[zippy890]

28. Its a great debate to have right now

The problem is where are the caliber of political leaders
that existed when the first Constitutional convention occurred.

The intellectual capacity of the present political scene is pathetic.

[Biernuts]

31. The thing that scares the hell out of congress is the idea of

the people amending the constitution without congressional vetting of anything brought forward.

You couldn't get enough states to abolish the Electoral College. But you probably would end up with congressional term limits, or each state having the option to establish term limits for their congressional delegation. And roughly a 50-50 chance for mandatory retirement age for federal judges/justices. Congress and/or states would be given explicit powers to limit/regulate abortions. Finally, no state or city would have the authority to bar sane non-felon adults from protecting their homes (and maybe their persons on public property) with firearms. Perhaps an English-only Christian nation codified in the Constitution. I doubt the income tax would fare all that well. Say hello to a national consumption (sales) tax instead, of course without any degree of progressivity. Strict limits on Emminent Domain.

A Constitutional Convention would unsettle "settled law" in myriad areas, particularly in value areas.

[jaysunb]

38. Welcome to DU and

thanks for your thoughts. I like them, and agree that Congress would not look kindly on " we the people " having a say in our governance

[Freedom_Aflaim]

32. I bet Bush and Crew agree

That its time as well to "make a few changes"

[HamDon]

35. We don't need a new constitution

we need a new revolution to restore the constitution.

[TransitJohn]

36. I would say the best thing we could do

would be pass an amendment that explicitly states that corporations are not entitled to rights, both enumerated or not, granted to natural born people.

[Philosoraptor]

46. I say start from the ground up.

Literally, that stuff was written 2 centuries ago in an entirely different world than the one we now live in.

Keep the good parts, add new ones, throw out archaic ones.