SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Constitution has 27 amendments; each was proposed by Congress and ratified by the states.
However, the Constitution sets forth another procedure, never before used, for amending the Constitution. At the request of two thirds of the states, a constitutional convention would be held, at which amendments could be proposed. Any proposals would become part of the Constitution if three fourths of the states ratified them, either at state conventions or in the state legislatures.
Currently, 27 of the needed 34 states have petitioned Congress for a constitutional convention, for the ostensible purpose of writing a balanced-budget amendment (BBA). However, the convention might propose other changes in addition or instead of a BBA—even a total rewrite of the Constitution—if 38 states agreed, the changes would become law.
In November, legislators from 30 states met in Salt Lake City to discuss the matter.
- Forbes article from 2014 (mirror)
- John Birch Society (has a map)
- utahpolicy.com
- Deseret News
- Yellowhammer News
- The Universe—Brigham Young University
- San Francisco Chronicle
- KSTU-TV
- The Columbian
- Washington Post blog about historical attempts at constitutional conventions
- The Spokesman-Review
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday December 11 2015, @06:45AM
First time I heard about this there were something like two states. Now its only a few away from a convention.
The summary is wrong about one thing: [cloudfront.net]
The worry back then was a runaway convention opening up a whole can of worms. However, the convention of states route allows the states to dictate to their delegates the only subject areas they are allowed to address, and any attempt to deal with or vote outside the mandate is repudiated by the state immediately. Further Article V has examples of such limitations written right into it.
They've been very diligent about keeping the state legislators on task to restricting the focus of any convention.
The thing might actually just work. Still there's no assurance we would like what they churned out. Luckily, your state legislature gets the final say.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @06:59AM
The worry back then was a runaway convention opening up a whole can of worms. However, the convention of states route allows the states to dictate to their delegates the only subject areas they are allowed to address, and any attempt to deal with or vote outside the mandate is repudiated by the state immediately. Further Article V has examples of such limitations written right into it.
Unless, of course, the new constitution conveniently voids that.
They've been very diligent about keeping the state legislators on task to restricting the focus of any convention.
Whose tasks?
Luckily, your state legislature gets the final say.
This is the real failsafe.
My view on this is that no one has yet come up with a rational explanation for why a convention is required. How about we grow some common sense instead of trying to demand it via a new constitution?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by frojack on Friday December 11 2015, @07:08AM
Well it all comes down to federal overreach in the end.
You ask for a real fail-safe, in a discussion about government? What Fail-safe do you have now?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @08:00AM
You ask for a real fail-safe, in a discussion about government?
Are fail-safes perfect?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @09:56AM
You ask for a real fail-safe, in a discussion about government? What Fail-safe do you have now?
Let me rephrase that. In a situation where things are chancy enough that one needs failsafes, is there any reason to expect the failsafe to be perfect?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday December 11 2015, @07:25PM
Government, by its very nature, is an invention of humans, run by humans, staffed by humans.
Its not going to be perfect. The Constitution isn't perfect. The people who wrote it weren't perfect. There is no reason to expect a Constitutional convention would be perfect.
We have no chance of achieving perfect. So I wonder why you bring it up? Isn't it just another form of, "We shouldn't waste money going to space until we solve every social problem on earth"?
The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @07:58PM
We have no chance of achieving perfect. So I wonder why you bring it up? Isn't it just another form of, "We shouldn't waste money going to space until we solve every social problem on earth"?
Because you brought the matter up ("You ask for a real fail-safe, in a discussion about government?"). This isn't a "back at you" thing. Human involvement is not magic. You can plan for problems with a constitutional convention just as you can any other thing made by humans. I didn't mention the fail-safe because I thought it would act perfectly, but because it raises the threshold for screwing up by a significant amount of effort. Instead of just coopting a sufficiently large majority of delegates to a convention, you also have to suborn a supermajority of state legislatures. I think this threshold has been sufficient to prevent its misuse several times in history (such as during the Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR administrations).
Also, if you can suborn a supermajority of state legislatures, you probably can ignore the constitution already with the resulting convention being a rubber stamp on an already done deal.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @07:20AM
My view on this is that no one has yet come up with a rational explanation for why a convention is required.
Forcing an end to our shitty two party system? Stopping the drug war permanently? Explicitly taking action against mass surveillance so that even our mentally retarded judges can understand that it's forbidden? Of course, the problem with this is that I don't trust the government one bit, so they would probably use the convention to gut our constitutional rights instead of doing anything useful.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @08:04AM
Forcing an end to our shitty two party system? Stopping the drug war permanently? Explicitly taking action against mass surveillance so that even our mentally retarded judges can understand that it's forbidden? Of course, the problem with this is that I don't trust the government one bit, so they would probably use the convention to gut our constitutional rights instead of doing anything useful.
Thank you for demonstrating my point here. Changing how we vote is a huge change, but one which can be done without the risk of changing the entire constitution or even for that matter, of changing anything at the federal level (state-level changes are quite adequate for this purpose). Ending the drug war is a simple legislative act. Ending mass surveillance is a matter of enforcing existing law ("this time we mean it" laws are universally pointless). There is not a single reason here for a convention.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @08:16AM
Ending the drug war is a simple legislative change, but then the same would be true of starting it back up again. I seek a more permanent protection of our rights.
Yes, we should enforce existing laws, but our courts are so retarded and authoritarian that they need it spelled out for them explicitly that mass surveillance is unconstitutional (it already is, really) before we can even do so. Maybe also add real penalties for politicians who vote for unconstitutional laws.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @09:42AM
Ending the drug war is a simple legislative change, but then the same would be true of starting it back up again. I seek a more permanent protection of our rights.
What rights would those be?
Yes, we should enforce existing laws, but our courts are so retarded and authoritarian that they need it spelled out for them explicitly that mass surveillance is unconstitutional (it already is, really) before we can even do so.
Yea, right. Do you not see the inherent irrationality of your argument? There is no law so explicit that it can't be ignored.
Maybe also add real penalties for politicians who vote for unconstitutional laws.
Already exists. Vote them out.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @10:06AM
What rights would those be?
The fundamental right to control your own body. The right to control your own property (the drugs).
Yea, right. Do you not see the inherent irrationality of your argument?
I don't.
There is no law so explicit that it can't be ignored.
But some laws are more explicit and therefore harder to ignore than others. I do not seek perfection.
Already exists. Vote them out.
Not good enough. They are traitors, so they need to be imprisoned at the very least.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @05:24PM
The fundamental right to control your own body. The right to control your own property (the drugs).
Already present. More amendments won't enforce what laws won't enforce.
But some laws are more explicit and therefore harder to ignore than others. I do not seek perfection.
But you do seek out the pointless. It's just more laws to ignore.
Not good enough. They are traitors, so they need to be imprisoned at the very least.
Treason has a particular definition. And who will decide what is unconstitutional and thus, treason? If one can be imprisoned for doing something unconstitutional, they can be imprisoned for obeying the constitution as well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @06:29PM
Treason has a particular definition. And who will decide what is unconstitutional and thus, treason? If one can be imprisoned for doing something unconstitutional, they can be imprisoned for obeying the constitution as well.
Your argument makes no sense whatsoever.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @07:48PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:34AM
The government already has such a power with regards to normal people. Maybe our politicians should have a taste of their own medicine.
And imprisoning people for violating the highest law of the land? Crazy. Why would anyone be imprisoned for violating the law? That's something that only happens to peasants, not to our magnificent government overlords.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @09:32AM
Already present. More amendments won't enforce what laws won't enforce.
The federal drug war is unconstitutional already, but it would be nice to take more oppressive powers away from the state governments as well.
But you do seek out the pointless. It's just more laws to ignore.
But they will be more difficult to ignore, because even the courts won't be able to lawyer-logic it away.
Treason has a particular definition.
Many people in the government are the enemy and they are trying to overthrow our constitutional form of government. They have taken tangible steps to do so (passing laws, aiding enemies like the NSA, etc.). In what way is that not treason?
And who will decide what is unconstitutional and thus, treason? If one can be imprisoned for doing something unconstitutional, they can be imprisoned for obeying the constitution as well.
What do you propose, then? Allowing the government to continue violating the highest law of the land with impunity? The worse possible result for them is that they get voted out. Unacceptable. They need to be in prison. Maybe we could take into account intent, the number of times they've violated the constitution, and a few other things to make sure the occasional crazy judge doesn't screw everything up, but doing nothing is intolerable.
Taking power away from the government is, to me, usually a good thing. What we have now is a government that has too much power, not a government that is 'oppressed' by the courts; the courts are usually in favor of more power for the government, not less. So, to me, the issue you describe doesn't seem to be an issue that would actually exist. Even if it did, it's still a better result than allowing the government to violate the constitution with near impunity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday December 12 2015, @05:12PM
But they will be more difficult to ignore, because even the courts won't be able to lawyer-logic it away.
Sure, they will. It's only a little harder than breathing. For example, where does it say in the Second Amendment that gun ownership and usage is a collective right but not an individual one (that is, a right that everyone has, but nobody in particular has)? Apparently, someone back in the 19th used some brain cells to come up with that. No one else has since except to occasionally put a little more lipstick on the pig.
Wording doesn't stop tyranny. Division of power stops tyranny. An involved, informed, empowered citizenry stops tyranny.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday December 11 2015, @02:54PM
What I would really like to see out of said Convention would be an affirmation of the original 9th and 10th Amendments. Probably something greatly restricting the commerce clause would be the way to go.
I do not see how a drug war is even possible given the 9th Amendment. That's just the blindingly obvious part of it all. Obamacare for me, constitutionally, is an “I can't even” moment given the 9th and 10th Amendments. That being said, I would like the power to fund healthcare added to Congress' powers, but done properly with an amendment (perhaps also a power with no mandate to provide a basic minimum income).
Also I'd like the 17th Amendment [wikipedia.org] rescinded. Also some affirmation that only Congress has the power to declare war, probably some clarification of what constitutes a war. Oh, and a pony.
It's amazing how close this Convention is to happening. Usually when it gets this close, congress steps in and starts it themselves rather than be embarrassed by the Several States. This time, though, all bets are off. I doubt the idiots in congress and various TLAs even realize this time around that the Several States are even allowed to question their authority, much less the People.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday December 11 2015, @09:26AM
What's the penalty in the constitution for a supreme court that ignores the constitution?
(Score: 1) by Delwin on Friday December 11 2015, @03:04PM
Impeachment.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday December 11 2015, @06:07PM
Excellent, that means that the last time the supreme court was even thought to have ignored the constitution was 1805, but turns out they hadn't.
What's the practical punishment for a supreme court justice who ignores the constitution?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 11 2015, @09:07PM
Indeed. The Constitution says that federal judges serve "during times of good behavior".
That means that they have a lifetime appointment--unless they screw up royally.
(Federal Judge Mark Fuller, an extremely partisan (Read: crooked) [google.com] Alabama Republican, recently lost his job after punching/beating his wife.)
If you were in The South during the 1960s, you probably saw bumper stickers, printed buttons,
billboards, and such calling for the impeachment of integrationist Earl Warren. [google.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Friday December 11 2015, @09:15AM
That was eradicated long time ago, only vestigial non-functional remains are to be seen. Very much like the appendix, the male boobs/nipples, wisdom teeth and the coccis.
You want proof you say? Look no further than the Trump social phenomenon and tell me what meaning "common sense" has? Common with what?
And the Tea Party hardliners before?
And the "house prices never go down" and mortgage backed bonds before them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday December 11 2015, @09:54AM
You want proof you say? Look no further than the Trump social phenomenon and tell me what meaning "common sense" has? Common with what? And the Tea Party hardliners before? And the "house prices never go down" and mortgage backed bonds before them?
I suppose your peculiar ideological slant emphasizes your argument by presenting you as an implicit fourth example, but it also indicates a blindness to rhetoric and to possible solutions. Wouldn't you think it peculiar to instead make the argument by rattling off foibles of the Roman Catholic church. And it weakens your argument. After all, general arguments are best supported by general evidence, second-best being a variety of specific evidence.
Similarly, if we should discuss solutions, one might conclude from your example, that this is all the problem of Trump voters, Tea Party hardliners, and a few financial instruments.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday December 11 2015, @11:28AM
It seems like you suggest both of us share quite a small amount of sense in common with the other. In which case your assertion above may act as another example.
discuss solutions to the problem of the lack of common sense? Far from my mind to suggest that what I presented are anything but some examples which demonstrate the existence of the problem and in no way a proposed solution; heck, I'm not even saying the examples describe completely the problem.
Coming back to where this started (i.e. your wish of "How about we grow some common sense") - our exchange shows that the solution to "growing some common sense" may be easier to say than do: lately the "commonality" of the sense is in a terrible weak state (while the "sense" part seems very inflamed).
As such:
Naaah... who am I kidding? It won't happen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday December 11 2015, @04:31PM
How about we grow some common sense
The thing about "common sense" is that it isn't.
Also everyone seems to have a different definition
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Friday December 11 2015, @05:41PM
For instance, my definition of common sense is "something that a person has a strong belief in, but can't adequately articulate why."
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday December 11 2015, @07:47AM
As others already remind, the Constitutional Convention which gave us our current constitution was equally limited to tweaking the Articles of Confederation. Mission creep happened and it happened almost instantly.
No, the protection is that just like last time a Convention can only propose Amendments (or even a whole new Constitution should they too decide to go beyond their mandate) but they still require ratification by the States exactly like Amendments proposed by Congress. If thirty-seven States are ready to go full bore Communist, Theocracy, Fascist, whatever nightmare scenario most frightens you, then that is what we are going to do. Doesn't seem all that likely that should enough states be angry at the out of control Federal government we have now to do this thing that they are then going to turn around and authorize some totalitarian monster that will render them extinct.