Need for a new constitutional convention?

[makesense]

Give your view as to the need for a new constitutional convention for the United States. Would you welcome such a call or would you be fearful of the outcome?

 

[yllus]

I don't think politicians on both sides today are capable of overcoming their partisan fever to attend such a convention constructively. Also if I recall correctly the convention attended back in the day to reform the structure of the federal government was mostly closed-door for a reason: The public was too misinformed to be told about every little thing being discussed. Nothing there IMO has changed but there's no way they could get away from holding a convention in camera today.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: yllus
I don't think politicians on both sides today are capable of overcoming their partisan fever to attend such a convention constructively. Also if I recall correctly the convention attended back in the day to reform the structure of the federal government was mostly closed-door for a reason: The public was too misinformed to be told about every little thing being discussed. Nothing there IMO has changed but there's no way they could get away from holding a convention in camera today.

 

[breweyez]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: yllus
I don't think politicians on both sides today are capable of overcoming their partisan fever to attend such a convention constructively. Also if I recall correctly the convention attended back in the day to reform the structure of the federal government was mostly closed-door for a reason: The public was too misinformed to be told about every little thing being discussed. Nothing there IMO has changed but there's no way they could get away from holding a convention in camera today.

 

[daveshel]

The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

 

[Mookow]

Everyone here who thinks the BoR would be passed today, please raise your hand. I didnt think so.

I would love to see one major change in the Constitution, and that is the creation of a third legislative body at the federal level. One that instead of passing laws, would only have the power to repeal laws. But they would only need a minority (say, 40 or 45%) in order to successfully repeal a law.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

 

[Infohawk]

Definitely. We should have periodical constitutional conventions.

Except these days it would be hard to find a concensus on much...

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

I don't think either party would let more than 10% of the Constitution pass.

But, a very similar document passed nearly 150 years ago. 🙂

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

I don't think either party would let more than 10% of the Constitution pass.

But, a very similar document passed nearly 150 years ago. 🙂

Circa 1854?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

I don't think either party would let more than 10% of the Constitution pass.

But, a very similar document passed nearly 150 years ago. 🙂

Circa 1854?

No, hence the nearly, it's actually 143 years ago, so I said nearly 150. 🙂

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Mookow
Everyone here who thinks the BoR would be passed today, please raise your hand. I didnt think so.

I would love to see one major change in the Constitution, and that is the creation of a third legislative body at the federal level. One that instead of passing laws, would only have the power to repeal laws. But they would only need a minority (say, 40 or 45%) in order to successfully repeal a law.

I like that idea

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

I think the 2nd Amendment is perfect in its current form

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.

But that well regulated part needs to be enforced. Sorry, Criminals should not have machine guns

I bet your right about IV and V and I'm sure the current admin would want VI removed.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

I think the 2nd Amendment is perfect in its current form

Umm... In the 102nd Congress, an Amendment was proposed to repeal the Second Amendment. Then in the 104th Congress, another Amendment was proposed to 'clarify the meaning' of the Second Amendment.

So if you think that it would pass in its current form, you're crazy.

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.

But that well regulated part needs to be enforced. Sorry, Criminals should not have machine guns [It is extremely difficult for anyone to get a 'machine gun'.]

I bet your right about IV and V and I'm sure the current admin would want VI removed.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy
But that well regulated part needs to be enforced. Sorry, Criminals should not have machine guns

There's a lot of things criminals shouldn't have but do anyways - that's part of what makes them criminals. 😛

Then of course there's the fact that a machine gun is not the same as an assault rifle, which is not the same as an assault rifle illegally converted to full-auto. Not even mentioning the fact that you can likely count the number of crimes involving an assault rifle or machine gun in the past 10 years on one hand.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Mookow
Everyone here who thinks the BoR would be passed today, please raise your hand. I didnt think so.

I would love to see one major change in the Constitution, and that is the creation of a third legislative body at the federal level. One that instead of passing laws, would only have the power to repeal laws. But they would only need a minority (say, 40 or 45%) in order to successfully repeal a law.

I like that idea

It is about the only hope I can see to get a somewhat smaller government here in the USA.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Mookow
Everyone here who thinks the BoR would be passed today, please raise your hand. I didnt think so.

I would love to see one major change in the Constitution, and that is the creation of a third legislative body at the federal level. One that instead of passing laws, would only have the power to repeal laws. But they would only need a minority (say, 40 or 45%) in order to successfully repeal a law.

I like that idea

It is about the only hope I can see to get a somewhat smaller government here in the USA.

Would this Third house be shaped like the senate? Or more like the House?

Eitherway, it's that many more people's salaries that need to be paid.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

I think the 2nd Amendment is perfect in its current form

Umm... In the 102nd Congress, an Amendment was proposed to repeal the Second Amendment. Then in the 104th Congress, another Amendment was proposed to 'clarify the meaning' of the Second Amendment.

So if you think that it would pass in its current form, you're crazy.

I didn't say that

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.

But that well regulated part needs to be enforced. Sorry, Criminals should not have machine guns [It is extremely difficult for anyone to get a 'machine gun'.]

I bet your right about IV and V and I'm sure the current admin would want VI removed.

Which is a good thing IMO

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

I think the 2nd Amendment is perfect in its current form

Umm... In the 102nd Congress, an Amendment was proposed to repeal the Second Amendment. Then in the 104th Congress, another Amendment was proposed to 'clarify the meaning' of the Second Amendment.

So if you think that it would pass in its current form, you're crazy.

I didn't say that

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.

But that well regulated part needs to be enforced. Sorry, Criminals should not have machine guns [It is extremely difficult for anyone to get a 'machine gun'.]

I bet your right about IV and V and I'm sure the current admin would want VI removed.

Which is a good thing IMO

Just commenting. You think it is, but many others do not.

Also, criminals can get illegal guns, that's what makes them criminals. More restrictive laws will not stop them from getting illegal guns.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: MookowIt is about the only hope I can see to get a somewhat smaller government here in the USA.

Would this Third house be shaped like the senate? Or more like the House?

Eitherway, it's that many more people's salaries that need to be paid.

You are being penny-wise, pound-foolish. I see it being a mix of the two, ie each state gets 2 members, and then there is a pool of 100 seats to be divided by the populations of each state. Unless each member of Congress directly costs in the tens of Billions, I cannot see this resulting in anything of than a net reduction in the federal budget, just because a lot of pork should be axed through this.

BTW, does anyone know how much a Senator costs, when you add staff + benefits, on a yearly basis?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: MookowIt is about the only hope I can see to get a somewhat smaller government here in the USA.

Would this Third house be shaped like the senate? Or more like the House?

Eitherway, it's that many more people's salaries that need to be paid.

You are being penny-wise, pound-foolish. I see it being a mix of the two, ie each state gets 2 members, and then there is a pool of 100 seats to be divided by the populations of each state. Unless each member of Congress directly costs in the tens of Billions, I cannot see this resulting in anything of than a net reduction in the federal budget, just because a lot of pork should be axed through this.

BTW, does anyone know how much a Senator costs, when you add staff + benefits, on a yearly basis?

I'm just being anal. 🙂

It sounds like a good idea, but it would never happen. Basic laws are barely passed, let alone drastic measures.

Edit: I guess nothing could get done at all. Tons of peole with their thumbs up their asses taking up space instead of cutting wasteful spending.

 

[miketheidiot]

If I would change the constitution, I would first add and Economic Bill Of Rights. Right to healthy food, sanitary water, shelter, healthcare etc. I would also change the presidency to a more triumverate type thing, with either 3 or 5 members. I don't like that much power in one mans hands. Finally, The house would be voted for by national election, not district election. The senate would remain in current form, as well as everyone else.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: amdfanboy

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: daveshel
The current government owes its existence to the current constitution. It is unrealistic to think they would allow it to be changed in any appreciable or meaningful way. If you want a new constitution, it will take a now government, and I will not be the one to bring up the 'R' word.

You really think that the Democrats would pass the 2nd Amendment as it stands? Or either party would pass the 4th and 5th Amendments?

I think the 2nd Amendment is perfect in its current form

Umm... In the 102nd Congress, an Amendment was proposed to repeal the Second Amendment. Then in the 104th Congress, another Amendment was proposed to 'clarify the meaning' of the Second Amendment.

So if you think that it would pass in its current form, you're crazy.

I didn't say that

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.

But that well regulated part needs to be enforced. Sorry, Criminals should not have machine guns [It is extremely difficult for anyone to get a 'machine gun'.]

I bet your right about IV and V and I'm sure the current admin would want VI removed.

Which is a good thing IMO

Just commenting. You think it is, but many others do not.

Also, criminals can get illegal guns, that's what makes them criminals. More restrictive laws will not stop them from getting illegal guns.

Nor will alowing them to do it legally.

Edit: Actually it would because they wouldn't be illegal 😉 , but you get the point.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If I would change the constitution, I would first add and Economic Bill Of Rights. Right to healthy food, sanitary water, shelter, healthcare etc. I would also change the presidency to a more triumverate type thing, with either 3 or 5 members. I don't like that much power in one mans hands. Finally, The house would be voted for by national election, not district election. The senate would remain in current form, as well as everyone else.

Last I heard, we weren't a Socialistic country.

And, your co-president idea has been attempted before, guess what? It failed miserably. The presidents fought over power, and nothing got gone.

But, thank God you can't change the Constitution.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If I would change the constitution, I would first add and Economic Bill Of Rights. Right to healthy food, sanitary water, shelter, healthcare etc. I would also change the presidency to a more triumverate type thing, with either 3 or 5 members. I don't like that much power in one mans hands. Finally, The house would be voted for by national election, not district election. The senate would remain in current form, as well as everyone else.

Perhaps one day society, science and technology will have progressed to the point where food, water, shelter and healthcare can viably be provided for each and every person in the country. I don't really think we need to discuss how unviable that currently is - and no, wealth redistribution is not an answer.

The vice-president of the United States used to be a position held by the runner-up in the presidential election. Within perhaps nanoseconds it was realized that this was completely unrealistic, leading to the afterthought of a position it is today.

The House is voted for by district election for a very good reason - all parts of the country do not share common interests whether they be social (or frankly more importantly) economically. Thinking otherwise is unrealistic at best and the encroachment of a tyranny of the majority at worst.