Skip to main content

View Diary: Our Pathetic Constitution (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why I would oppose a 2nd CC (3+ / 0-)

    I think in the end we think "this is what we need, to refresh the document".

    But here is the outcome of a 2nd CC:

    Many states would view it as an option to leave the union free and clear for failure to ratify.

    While we morn the "great compromise" in the constitution which was later changed, the kind of alterations many would want in the constitution would be sickening.  And, just like Republicans in the house, they would refuse to negotiate them.   You'd hear calls for English as a national language, border controls, abortion rights controls...

    Oh, those all sound laughable.. but that would absolutely not stop people from proposing them.  And, in a CC where ratification would take more than a simple majority, the number of states would simply say they would bail if they couldn't get there way.

    There are times I think: revision is smart.  And then I think about the people who would be in charge of making the changes, and decide against it.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:54:21 PM PST

    •  Why would the ratification process chosen by (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos

      the new Convention leave States with the right of leaving or staying? It's a vrtual given that the whole archaic concept of "State Sovereignty" would be done away with, to be replaced by something(s) far more democratic.

      A Con-Con would be a highly public process, but not a highly political one. If it ever did devolve into that, people would be so  negatively impacted that ratification would fail, and the current document would simply continue on unaffected.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 08:15:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you've missed my point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pluto, CwV

        The new constitution may not allow for it.   But while a convention is going on, any state that refuses to ratify.. what do you propose happens?  

        You're making the argument in a way that says: we can ratify and change this.  I'm saying the representatives from such a convention would be the same putz we have running around meaning you're going to get a drawn out convention that does not get what you want.

        Get what you want, and states refuse to ratify.  Then you have nothing.

        Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

        by Chris Reeves on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 08:19:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The reason why we have grid lock today is that (0+ / 0-)

          "none of the above" literally get as many votes, or nearly so, as all other choices put together. try to force aradical departure in a worse direction and our society simply will not make the move. That's our ultimate protection, and why we really should make the broadly collective effort to get some of this shit finally starightened out.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:25:14 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The Word "Sovereignty" Appears Nowhere In the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pistolSO, Kevskos, oldpotsmuggler

        words of the Constitution or all of the amendments.

        "Rights" appears nowhere connected with states.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 08:44:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Nothing is a "virtual given" in second ... (5+ / 0-)

        ...constitutional convention. How would the delegates be picked? Would states as they are currently constituted choose them? Would there be a national plebiscite to ratify the document? Would states as they are currently constituted hold individual state referenda on the new document? Or would the legislatures do the voting? Would it be one vote for the whole thing or would each section be voted on individually whether the legislatures or the citizens did the voting? Would there be a Bill of Rights? Would every get to pick and choose which parts of that bill to vote yes and no on?

        Very little at a con-con would be a given.

        As for "The fact is that every wealthy person in this country is more equal than any of the rest of us." Yep. But it wasn't Citizens United that achieved that. The Founders weren't exactly paupers and they didn't believe in anything approaching equal suffrage or equality under the law except for each other and those Americans who they counted as their peers.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 09:57:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, it has to one of those "go big, or stay (0+ / 0-)

          home" things. Minimum 5,000 delegates with selection rules guaranteeing a broad political base, every conceivable faction. DKos would clearly be there, as would, for example, NRA, and both in roughly equal proportion (based on overall political activism and impact). Unlimited resources, which should result in unlimited exposure. A true once in several centuries event, with more popular appeal than anything anyone has ever witnessed. Literal life and history changing potential, the very fate of humanity hanging in the balance. (Not to mention the only potential we have for getting the job done.)

          The Con-Con, the collection of the best and brightest minds the world has ever seen, produces the Document. If the process is what it can and should be, the result will be popularly accepted, because it will be sufficient to the demonstrated and understood need. The process for acceptance also must be sufficient, or, again, the end result will be nothing ("nothing" in this context, of course being the perpetuation of the status quo).

          A handful of guys sweating it out in secret was both manageable and logical the first time. Now, of course, that would never fly (which, by the way, is more than sufficient reason for us all to take a breather, sit down, and try to figure out where we want to go to next, and what will be required for us to undertake the journey.)

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:20:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Nations refresh their constitutions all the time. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, oldpotsmuggler

      The drafters work on the new document for a year or so. Then they send it around to be ratified or voted on.

      The old constitution is still in force until a broad agreement is reached. sometimes it takes years and many rewrites. There are excellent constitutions in the world, which is generally what they look at.

      All constitutions follow one rule:

      They are written to benefit the people.

      ::

      If that is not the goal in the US -- and the people are too terrified of each other to elevate themselves -- perhaps the US should break up into region nations where people can live with a government they honor and respect. Indeed, that is a human right, as well.



      Denial is a drug.

      by Pluto on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 08:18:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  "No" to the breakup, but for strictly practical (0+ / 0-)

        reasons. We're either all going to make it together or we're all going to not. (With the caveat being that, really, the risk of extinction is not to the species, but even having civilization collapse is a fate dire enough that working to prevent it makes eminent good sense.)

        There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

        by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 06:33:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site