A Constitutional Convention - explain this to me please. (1 Viewer)

[On The Rocks]

I've read a few articles (a couple below) recently that there are a few GOP'ers making noise about trying to get the votes for a Constituional Convention - primarily from what I've seen - to reign in big governement and spending.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/05/tom-coburn-constitutional-convention_n_4731913.html

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/14/governors-looking-at-constitutional-convention-to-reign-in-federal-spending/

Other than some info provided in these articles on how it is initiated, can anyone provide some background on how a CC would work? Who would be involved?

I'm curious if the desire for the Republicans to have a CC is just playing politics, (ala Donald Trump saying he will investigate running for office just to draw attention to himself) - or are they serious about making this happen?

Can they make it happen with the votes required?

Would it backfire and would the other side of the aisle make the push for amendments for their agenda?

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

TIA

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In my opinion, mucking around with constitutions is a bad thing.

But I believe the formation would be the same as the original constitutional convention.

Each state sends delegation to some designated place for some designated period.

What could possibly go wrong.

 

[NCCommish]

Totally against it. I don't think they can get the votes anyway.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Been there, done that.

 

[jon_mx]

It will never happen.

 

[Rich Conway]

In theory, it's a great idea to periodically revisit what works and what doesn't in the Constitution, and to clear up any potentially ambiguous language. In practice, given the motivations of those who would be involved, it would turn into a disaster.

 

[On The Rocks]

It will never happen.

This is what I suspect. I presume it is primarily tea party conservatives placating their constituents?

 

[Politician Spock]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

No they wouldn't. They would be an unmitigated disaster and be a direct attack on the stability of our republic.

 

[Politician Spock]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

No they wouldn't. They would be an unmitigated disaster and be a direct attack on the stability of our republic.

The stability of the republic is always being attacked. After 200+ years government has found so many holes in our Constitution to do what it wants to do that the Constitution might as well no longer exist. Regularly scheduled CCs would patch the holes the government is exploiting to by pass the protections the Constitution exists to provide the people.

 

[jon_mx]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

Really? There is not a single politician I know of I would trust opening up the Constitution to

 

[jon_mx]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

No they wouldn't. They would be an unmitigated disaster and be a direct attack on the stability of our republic.

The stability of the republic is always being attacked. After 200+ years government has found so many holes in our Constitution to do what it wants to do that the Constitution might as well no longer exist. Regularly scheduled CCs would patch the holes the government is exploiting to by pass the protections the Constitution exists to provide the people.

I believe the opposite, that politicians would look for more ways to expand the power of government by inserting more holes to exploit. I have seen zero evidence that any politician exists who wish to limit government

 

[joffer]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

No they wouldn't. They would be an unmitigated disaster and be a direct attack on the stability of our republic.

The stability of the republic is always being attacked. After 200+ years government has found so many holes in our Constitution to do what it wants to do that the Constitution might as well no longer exist. Regularly scheduled CCs would patch the holes the government is exploiting to by pass the protections the Constitution exists to provide the people.

I believe the opposite, that politicians would look for more ways to expand the power of government by inserting more holes to exploit. I have seen zero evidence that any politician exists who wish to limit government

Gary Johnson

 

[jon_mx]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

No they wouldn't. They would be an unmitigated disaster and be a direct attack on the stability of our republic.

The stability of the republic is always being attacked. After 200+ years government has found so many holes in our Constitution to do what it wants to do that the Constitution might as well no longer exist. Regularly scheduled CCs would patch the holes the government is exploiting to by pass the protections the Constitution exists to provide the people.

I believe the opposite, that politicians would look for more ways to expand the power of government by inserting more holes to exploit. I have seen zero evidence that any politician exists who wish to limit government

Gary Johnson

That is until he is given any real power

 

[Yankee23Fan]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

No they wouldn't. They would be an unmitigated disaster and be a direct attack on the stability of our republic.

The stability of the republic is always being attacked. After 200+ years government has found so many holes in our Constitution to do what it wants to do that the Constitution might as well no longer exist. Regularly scheduled CCs would patch the holes the government is exploiting to by pass the protections the Constitution exists to provide the people.

No the exact opposite would happen. The constitution would be amended a billion times and be an absolute mess that has no stability of any kind and defeat the very reason it exists.

 

[Scoresman]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

Really? There is not a single politician I know of I would trust opening up the Constitution to

probably the only time you and I will agree on something politically!

 

[Sarnoff]

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

It's never happened. Ever. There are no rules except what's in the Constitution. Everything else is speculative. That's the threat that keeps it from happening.

Say the GOP took over enough state legislatures to call for a convention to repeal ObamaCare. Congress would be scared to death. Because once it starts, anything could happen. Repeal the 17th amendment. Change the voting process for the House of Representatives. Undo tons of government spending. End unfunded mandates (i.e. make the federal government pay costs associated with the rules it forces upon the states). Change the Electoral College. It's all on the table. Congress would repeal ObamaCare in a heartbeat just to keep the other stuff from happening, and defuse the situation before it started.

 

[Fennis]

We do have to fight for our right to party.

 

[Sand]

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

Say the GOP took over enough state legislatures to call for a convention to repeal ObamaCare.

The convention wouldn't repeal Obamacare. It would better define the limits of the Commerce Clause. Something that is desperately needed since SCOTUS ####ed it up so badly.

Personally I don't think it would be the cluster many would. Since any amendment would have to pass 38 states the number of subjects that would be broached would be small. I can see three that would be there - clarifying the commerce clause, setting limits on eminent domain (desperately needed after Kelo vs. New London), and a balanced budget amendment.

Not sure how those would carry - I can see only the second one getting widespread support. Obamacare is too hot right now. And no way liberal lawmakers would go along with limitations on the infinite subsidy policy currently in place.

 

[Godsbrother]

In theory, it's a great idea to periodically revisit what works and what doesn't in the Constitution, and to clear up any potentially ambiguous language. In practice, given the motivations of those who would be involved, it would turn into a disaster.

/thread

 

[Politician Spock]

This should be done regularly. Once every 20 years, if not 10.

Because it's not regularly scheduled, when one is being called for, it's being called by the currently pissed off people, and as such a CC is given a negative light.

If it was done on a regular schedule, CCs would be a postive thing.

No they wouldn't. They would be an unmitigated disaster and be a direct attack on the stability of our republic.

The stability of the republic is always being attacked. After 200+ years government has found so many holes in our Constitution to do what it wants to do that the Constitution might as well no longer exist. Regularly scheduled CCs would patch the holes the government is exploiting to by pass the protections the Constitution exists to provide the people.

No the exact opposite would happen. The constitution would be amended a billion times and be an absolute mess that has no stability of any kind and defeat the very reason it exists.

Then we must accept that the Constituion has a finite limit of life. When the opposition can try hundreds of different ways to say the same thing that it wants to do, but the defense is limited only to its original words, the opposition will eventually find the right words to bypass the defense.

 

[NCCommish]

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

Say the GOP took over enough state legislatures to call for a convention to repeal ObamaCare.

The convention wouldn't repeal Obamacare. It would better define the limits of the Commerce Clause. Something that is desperately needed since SCOTUS ####ed it up so badly.

Personally I don't think it would be the cluster many would. Since any amendment would have to pass 38 states the number of subjects that would be broached would be small. I can see three that would be there - clarifying the commerce clause, setting limits on eminent domain (desperately needed after Kelo vs. New London), and a balanced budget amendment.

Not sure how those would carry - I can see only the second one getting widespread support. Obamacare is too hot right now. And no way liberal lawmakers would go along with limitations on the infinite subsidy policy currently in place.

Worst ####### fiscal policy ever suggested. Where would we be right now with a balanced budget requirement? Reliving the Great Depression.

 

[Sand]

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

Say the GOP took over enough state legislatures to call for a convention to repeal ObamaCare.

The convention wouldn't repeal Obamacare. It would better define the limits of the Commerce Clause. Something that is desperately needed since SCOTUS ####ed it up so badly.

Personally I don't think it would be the cluster many would. Since any amendment would have to pass 38 states the number of subjects that would be broached would be small. I can see three that would be there - clarifying the commerce clause, setting limits on eminent domain (desperately needed after Kelo vs. New London), and a balanced budget amendment.

Not sure how those would carry - I can see only the second one getting widespread support. Obamacare is too hot right now. And no way liberal lawmakers would go along with limitations on the infinite subsidy policy currently in place.

Worst ####### fiscal policy ever suggested. Where would we be right now with a balanced budget requirement? Reliving the Great Depression.

Balanced doesn't necessarily mean equal inflows and outflows. Balanced could be defined as allowing a certain amount of leverage. The 33% we have now is ridiculous, of course, but I agree small amounts of leverage are good.

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm wif Spock.

 

[NCCommish]

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

Say the GOP took over enough state legislatures to call for a convention to repeal ObamaCare.

The convention wouldn't repeal Obamacare. It would better define the limits of the Commerce Clause. Something that is desperately needed since SCOTUS ####ed it up so badly.

Personally I don't think it would be the cluster many would. Since any amendment would have to pass 38 states the number of subjects that would be broached would be small. I can see three that would be there - clarifying the commerce clause, setting limits on eminent domain (desperately needed after Kelo vs. New London), and a balanced budget amendment.

Not sure how those would carry - I can see only the second one getting widespread support. Obamacare is too hot right now. And no way liberal lawmakers would go along with limitations on the infinite subsidy policy currently in place.

Worst ####### fiscal policy ever suggested. Where would we be right now with a balanced budget requirement? Reliving the Great Depression.

Balanced doesn't necessarily mean equal inflows and outflows. Balanced could be defined as allowing a certain amount of leverage. The 33% we have now is ridiculous, of course, but I agree small amounts of leverage are good.

Every proposal I have seen for a balanced budget amendment allows no deficit spending.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Jefferson thought such conventions should be held regularly. I don't think today's politicians or today's electorate are any less capable of devising a Constitution than the Framers were. We have many, many more examples of vital Constitutions in place today (like in South Africa). We have centuries of practical experience of governing under a Constitutional Republic.

There's no doubt there would be illogical compromises, but they would be illogical compromises borne from current ideological disputes. Not goofy compromises borne from ideological disputes between landed gentry 225 years ago.

 

[Sand]

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

Say the GOP took over enough state legislatures to call for a convention to repeal ObamaCare.

The convention wouldn't repeal Obamacare. It would better define the limits of the Commerce Clause. Something that is desperately needed since SCOTUS ####ed it up so badly.

Personally I don't think it would be the cluster many would. Since any amendment would have to pass 38 states the number of subjects that would be broached would be small. I can see three that would be there - clarifying the commerce clause, setting limits on eminent domain (desperately needed after Kelo vs. New London), and a balanced budget amendment.

Not sure how those would carry - I can see only the second one getting widespread support. Obamacare is too hot right now. And no way liberal lawmakers would go along with limitations on the infinite subsidy policy currently in place.

Worst ####### fiscal policy ever suggested. Where would we be right now with a balanced budget requirement? Reliving the Great Depression.

Balanced doesn't necessarily mean equal inflows and outflows. Balanced could be defined as allowing a certain amount of leverage. The 33% we have now is ridiculous, of course, but I agree small amounts of leverage are good.

Every proposal I have seen for a balanced budget amendment allows no deficit spending.

Do you expect more from politicians? I swear it is like none of them have ever had any higher math training.

There is some fairly basic math that can be done to define when the debt service on leverage overwhelms the effect of the leverage. It ain't rocket science.

 

[NCCommish]

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

Say the GOP took over enough state legislatures to call for a convention to repeal ObamaCare.

The convention wouldn't repeal Obamacare. It would better define the limits of the Commerce Clause. Something that is desperately needed since SCOTUS ####ed it up so badly.

Personally I don't think it would be the cluster many would. Since any amendment would have to pass 38 states the number of subjects that would be broached would be small. I can see three that would be there - clarifying the commerce clause, setting limits on eminent domain (desperately needed after Kelo vs. New London), and a balanced budget amendment.

Not sure how those would carry - I can see only the second one getting widespread support. Obamacare is too hot right now. And no way liberal lawmakers would go along with limitations on the infinite subsidy policy currently in place.

Worst ####### fiscal policy ever suggested. Where would we be right now with a balanced budget requirement? Reliving the Great Depression.

Balanced doesn't necessarily mean equal inflows and outflows. Balanced could be defined as allowing a certain amount of leverage. The 33% we have now is ridiculous, of course, but I agree small amounts of leverage are good.

Every proposal I have seen for a balanced budget amendment allows no deficit spending.

Do you expect more from politicians? I swear it is like none of them have ever had any higher math training.

There is some fairly basic math that can be done to define when the debt service on leverage overwhelms the effect of the leverage. It ain't rocket science.

Which is why there should be no conventions.

 

[joffer]

It would be a trainwreck

 

[Sarnoff]

What is the history of these conventions in the past say 50 years? I've looked around and havn't had much luck on any recent history. Is it not very common?

Say the GOP took over enough state legislatures to call for a convention to repeal ObamaCare.

The convention wouldn't repeal Obamacare. It would better define the limits of the Commerce Clause. Something that is desperately needed since SCOTUS ####ed it up so badly.

Personally I don't think it would be the cluster many would. Since any amendment would have to pass 38 states the number of subjects that would be broached would be small. I can see three that would be there - clarifying the commerce clause, setting limits on eminent domain (desperately needed after Kelo vs. New London), and a balanced budget amendment.

Not sure how those would carry - I can see only the second one getting widespread support. Obamacare is too hot right now. And no way liberal lawmakers would go along with limitations on the infinite subsidy policy currently in place.

Worst ####### fiscal policy ever suggested. Where would we be right now with a balanced budget requirement? Reliving the Great Depression.

Balanced doesn't necessarily mean equal inflows and outflows. Balanced could be defined as allowing a certain amount of leverage. The 33% we have now is ridiculous, of course, but I agree small amounts of leverage are good.

Every proposal I have seen for a balanced budget amendment allows no deficit spending.

I think we should reverse the spending/taxation calendar. We should tax first, see how much money comes in, and then use that number as the budget to pay for the programs the next year. Instead of spending first then finding the money for it later.

 

[On The Rocks]

In theory, it's a great idea to periodically revisit what works and what doesn't in the Constitution, and to clear up any potentially ambiguous language. In practice, given the motivations of those who would be involved, it would turn into a disaster.

/thread

Based on the arguements pro/con in this thread, I'm going with this.