I'd really like to know the answer to a question, Markos.
In order to ask the question, please allow me to excerpt diaries from late last year when Larry Sabato's diaries kicked up chatter on the subject of a constitutional convention.
arubyan's diary: http://www.dailykos.com/...
...a Constitutional Convention, is (potentially) the riskiest one of all. Who would chair a convention like that? And, more importantly, how would you preserve the voice of the people when corporations hold so much power?
If Congress is coerced to issue the call for a convention, the states must elect delegates the same way members of Congress are elected. In such an election there will be a field of candidates--not just one blue and one red. The convention would by and large be composed of the people.
The difference between U.S. Convention Delegates and members of Congress, is that the former will not be worried about plying favors for a campaign somewhere in the future. They arrive to do one thing: to figure out what idea could possibly garner the approval of thirty-eight states. They don't legislate, they build consensus about what will fly, and anyone with any sense today knows that idea is going to be about electoral reform.
egrass' diary: http://www.dailykos.com/...
While nobody can claim that the Constitution as written is perfect, it is an amazing document given the core concepts that it conveys quite succinctly and effectively. Even its very structure is a beauty to behold. Article I is written not about the President, but rather to create the Legislature and place it in the highest position in the multi-part pantheon of our government. Congress, not the executive, is given the most critical powers including among other things control of the purse, the ability to create and manage armies, the sole right to declar war....
I'll claim the Constitution as written is perfect, specifically because when the people who are elected to Congress become unaccountable for their actions (or inaction), it provides for an open, national discussion about sensible change; and any idea with a hint of impropriety is toast, it'll wait for ratification in vain.
Ivan Carter's diary: http://www.dailykos.com/...
What is being missed, and somewhat ignored even on this site, is that right now we are facing problems THAT OUR FOUNDING FATHERS DID IMAGINE; the threat of some type of unchecked power by one branch of Government.... And the Constitution was created in large measure to prevent against it ever becoming a possibility. And this, the greatest problem that we do face, which the Constitution WAS set up to address, we ignore, while instead we wax on about this (presently) silly idea of a 'constitutional convention.' Thus, the idea could be expressed this way: A Constitutional Convention, versus paying proper attention to the one we have.
If the convention clause is part of the Constitution, and is there for a specific reason (see Federalist 85), then isn't Carter's comment ironic?
Larry Sabato's diary: http://www.dailykos.com/...
Instead, we need to turn to the second process, one never before used in the history of the United States: a Constitutional Convention.... The ultimate check on any Convention, though, is the requirement that thirty-eight states ratify any proposed change to the Constitution....
In other comments made at his mock-convention Sabato says he thinks we have a generation or two to execute the clause.
My question to you Markos, is why? Why are we the living not deserving enough to have the Constitution put to work here and now today? Why do we have to watch the country, its accomplishments and ideals get brushed into the dustbin of history by bi-partisan malfeasance and institutionalized corruption? When the simple process of proposing amendments will revive the Constitution and a republic based on personal freedoms and representative government? How about we use the constitution we have, hold a convention, and let delegates build consensus about what will square a government that's gotten bent out of shape?
If your hands are tied in some way Markos, then that's that, and thank you for the forum. If you're still thinking about this subject, then I hope you reach a conclusion soon.