New Constitutional Convention

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the system of checks and balances to its original mostly working form rather than its current broken form.

2. Remove the Commerce Clause. It was basically intended to ensure free trade so that the states would be stronger economically compared to Europe. Now, it's been distorted and perverted to justify many of Congress's constitutional violations (War on Drugs anyone?). Either replace it with a clause that supports free trade among the states or simply remove it entirely. The fear of being economically overwhelmed that prompted this clause is no longer present.

3. Clarify that the only valid interpretation of the Constitution is through the clear and common usage of the language at the time it was written and that the intentions of those who wrote it trump any loopholes.

4. Clarify that the Fed's power to make treaties does not allow them to do unconstitutional things by treaty. (For instance making a treaty restricting Freedom of Speech)

5. Repeal the 16th Amendment. If Congress wants tax money they should have to go through the states, not to the people directly. Let each state decide if they think income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes or whatever else is most fair.

6. Restructure the House using proportional representation on a grand scale. Disallow 1 seat elections that don't use a system at least as good as Instant Runoff Voting.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
what would you like to see (and what chance would your like have) ?


[/ QUOTE ]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont get what you mean by "the President would be popularly elected, or at least there would be a significant change to how the President was elected".


[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, the president is elected by an electoral college (not a direct vote from the citizenry.) Each state is granted a number of electors (2 + their number of representatives in the House, for a minimum of 3.) Each state can then decide how their electors will vote. Most states have opted for a system where the candidate who wins the popular election in the state will receive ALL of the electors from their state.

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew the selection wasnt simple, but i didnt think your elections were so complicated.

I assumed it was similar to how we choose a prime minister, where each state gets 1 vote, and when you win the most states you win the white house.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not all that complicated. It's simply a cross between what you have and a popular election.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
what would you like to see (and what chance would your like have) ?


[/ QUOTE ]

How the hell should I know? You'd have to be nearly omniscient to form a reasonable guess to that.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
How the hell should I know? You'd have to be nearly omniscient to form a reasonable guess to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really??? You can't form a reasonable opinion as to the likelihood of abolishing the income tax...omniscience must be more common than I thought.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Clarify that the only valid interpretation of the Constitution is through the clear and common usage of the language at the time it was written and that the intentions of those who wrote it trump any loopholes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will the new convention and its organizers be brining back the authors of the current Constitution back from the dead, or will you be acting as their proxy and deciding what their intentions were?

Because, if you guys don't mind, I think I should be their proxy, instead of anyone else. I'll gladly decide what the what the clear and common usage of Constitutional language is, and what the framers intentions were. So, I'm all for this new convention, so long as I have that aforementioned role. Let me know when you need my services.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How the hell should I know? You'd have to be nearly omniscient to form a reasonable guess to that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really??? You can't form a reasonable opinion as to the likelihood of abolishing the income tax...omniscience must be more common than I thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can't either. You just think you can.

[lehighguy]

There are intellectually honest ways to do this, read a book sometime.

[tolbiny]

What i think would happen is dependant on what the conditions were that brought about the convention.

1. In a time of general peace and prosperity virtually nothing would change, you can't convince millions of people that the status Quo is bad when their lives are pretty good. If it happened in this climate it would have to be a political manuever, or something underhanded where they get to

a. rewrite the constituaiton with essentially the same language but with a few extra loopholes for the framers benefits.
b. talk a whole lot about how democracy is great and "validate" the government a bit more.

amendment 1- same but more wriggle room against "terrorism".
amendment 2- well regulated militia written out and something even vaguer like "resonable restrictions" written in.
amendment 3- Cut out, and when the fed does go belly up many people regrett it as if words on a piece of paper could stop the military. Well they will be half right, since #2 won't be helping any.
amendment 4- the same but with exceptions again for "terrorism"
amendment 5- remain the same.
amendment 6- remain the same.
amendment 7- remain the same $$$ amounts changed.
amendment 8- more terrorism exceptions
amendment 9- remain the same.
amendment 10- remain the same.

2. After a disasterous gov failure. Like the Iraq occupation but actually in the states. multiple cities ht by hurricanes+major earthquakes+tornadoes+ major terroist attack. Gov can't deal, people freak out and want someone to blame. Some states fare better than others and this is seen as "unfair", states rights are cut to pieces and the Fed comes out with all thier powers, minus a few minor ones. Gay marrige banning admendment is passed as a rider to an oil cleanup bill, in which dollar bills are used to absorb the excess oil.

3. Economic collapse of the fed. SS problems +inflation issues + military spending and the fed can't raise taxes anymore. The convention turns out just like the first one. Weak centralized power, with states holding their own sovienty.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
There are intellectually honest ways to do this, read a book sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you saying you don't want me to be the guy who gets to decide what the language means and what the framers intents were? Perhaps that's a good thought, though; since I don't ever read books, perhaps I'm not the best person to handle such a job.

But if not me, then who? Maybe it could be more than one person? Perhaps a whole group of people? Which group of people would you entrust?

Fill me in here. I obviously don't read these strange things you call 'books' so I'll need your wisdom in discerning who should get to decide such things. I invite AlexM to answer this question as well.

[aheravi]

[ QUOTE ]

Amendments 4-6 would be substantially different. Fewer guaranteed rights of criminals. I think an overall frustration with the criminal justice system would lead to some pretty significant changes.



[/ QUOTE ]
Amendments 4-6 don't address rights of CRIMINALS. They address rights of the ACCUSED. While many other laws have been passed that are perceived to "coddle" criminals, there's a reason those amendments are there.