Convention of States: Good or Bad?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I've been hearing and reading a lot about a movement that's growing to have a Convention of States to amend the Constitution of the United States and I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this?

Is it a good or bad idea?
Why is it a good or bad idea in your opinion?

[Belsnickel]

So, there are a couple of things about this that I both like, and dislike.

First, we must look at the efforts by the Koch brothers to pack state legislatures with their people. They have intentions of a constitutional convention with their goals in mind. This has been the long game for them for years. They are the reason the states are gerrymandered the way they are.

Second, I do think we need a new constitution. But is right now the right time for it? We are more divided, ideologically, than we have been in 150 years. Is that the best time to be taking a hard look at the framework for our country? We have the oldest written constitution still in use, today. This is a point of pride to some people, but to me I see it as our country having this warped sense of reality that is based in nostalgia. Our founding fathers were, admittedly, smart people and I would consider them to be visionaries. But they were still people, they were flawed, and so is the document they created. We have to keep in mind that what we use today was the second go round of it. The reason the document says "in order to form a more perfect union" is because the union they formed the first time crumbled. Yes, the second attempt stuck much longer, but not without patching things up with a lot of amendments that can be interpreted one way by one court and another by a court a decade later.

I'm for a new constitution, but I am for starting from the ground up at a time when things are less volatile.

[Benton]

I doubt it would have much impact.

As I understand it, if a Convention was called, it must be called for a specific purpose (for arguments sake, let's say term limits for Congress). If enough states call for it, then Congress has to recognize the meeting, and then all states get to supply representatives, which are chosen by state Senates.

So, basically, you would have federal level members of state government calling for a meeting where a state level representative of state government would come forward.

I don't think it would do much of anything because, normally, your Congress members are representative of their fellow lawmakers back home who are representative of their voters. As many flaws as there are in the system, it — for the most part — really is representative government.

Take the Kansas Experiment. It wasn't like voters didn't know that's what they were voting for. Cut taxes to the point where everyone has such a mountain of cash, they have to spend it because you can only use so many $100 bills to light cigars before you get bored. So they cut and they cut and they cut. And then they cut more, and said it wasn't working because Obama. And when services nearly stopped, they cut a little more.

Why did lawmakers keep getting sent back after it was pretty obvious the state was going off the rails? It wasn't some conspiracy or fake news. Voters sent them back to make more cuts because voters believed you could still have a functional state with 0% income tax and some industries paying little to no tax. They were morons. And when they realized they made a mistake, their representatives (some of which were new), repealed about $1 billion in tax cuts.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

I myself think having a Convention of States is a good idea because things in the Constitution do need to be clarified. Like the Second Amendment where right now it is interpreted that the people have the right to own firearms but in 30 years it can be interpreted a different way. Clarify the amendment so that interpretation can only be one way.

I also think its a bad idea because the majority of the states are run by Republicans at this moment. That's very dangerous and even though I'm on the far Right, I'm still a Constitutionalist and do not want the Constitution to be a Republican document made law.

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 12:56 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I myself think having a Convention of States is a good idea because things in the Constitution do need to be clarified. Like the Second Amendment where right now it is interpreted that the people have the right to own firearms but in 30 years it can be interpreted a different way. Clarify the amendment so that interpretation can only be one way.

I also think its a bad idea because the majority of the states are run by Republicans at this moment. That's very dangerous and even though I'm on the far Right, I'm still a Constitutionalist and do not want the Constitution to be a Republican document made law.

Interestingly enough, that interpretation is less than a decade old. Prior to the DC case, the Second was interpreted to mean each individual has the right to take up arms in defense of the nation (join the military).

[*michaelsean*]

(09-19-2017, 11:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, there are a couple of things about this that I both like, and dislike.

First, we must look at the efforts by the Koch brothers to pack state legislatures with their people. They have intentions of a constitutional convention with their goals in mind. This has been the long game for them for years. They are the reason the states are gerrymandered the way they are.

Second, I do think we need a new constitution. But is right now the right time for it? We are more divided, ideologically, than we have been in 150 years. Is that the best time to be taking a hard look at the framework for our country? We have the oldest written constitution still in use, today. This is a point of pride to some people, but to me I see it as our country having this warped sense of reality that is based in nostalgia. Our founding fathers were, admittedly, smart people and I would consider them to be visionaries. But they were still people, they were flawed, and so is the document they created. We have to keep in mind that what we use today was the second go round of it. The reason the document says "in order to form a more perfect union" is because the union they formed the first time crumbled. Yes, the second attempt stuck much longer, but not without patching things up with a lot of amendments that can be interpreted one way by one court and another by a court a decade later.

I'm for a new constitution, but I am for starting from the ground up at a time when things are less volatile.

Does gerrymandering affect state seats?

[SunsetBengal]

Sure, I'd like to see an Article V convention take place. Why? I think an Amendment instituting a 12 year lifetime limit on eligibility to hold a seat in Congress would be a great thing. Would also like see such an Amendment include items like doing away with the lifetime salary and benefits, as well as a provision making it illegal for congress to exclude themselves from any law or regulation that an otherwise common citizen would be subject to.

You want a more productive, more cooperative, accurate representation of the American public in office? Do away with the career politicians.

Edit: While were at it, a complete overhaul of campaign finance policy wouldn't be a bad idea, either. As well as getting rid of line items and addendums to aid bills. Completely ridding of professional lobbyists (or at least their ability to use money to sway policy) I got more, but that's enough to get started with.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2017, 01:01 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interestingly enough, that interpretation is less than a decade old. Prior to the DC case, the Second was interpreted to mean each individual has the right to take up arms in defense of the nation (join the military).

Eh, the people who tried to interpret it that way for a period of time were the people who don't like the 2nd Amendment.

When it was made, the "militia" was a guy riding out to the various farms and saying "hey, grab your rifles" and they'd all gather together. Bam, your militia. Basically a bunch of random guys with guns. They had no uniforms. So their ideas of "well regulated" is quite different than modern day. They wore whatever they owned, carried their own personal weapons, "trained" themselves like maybe 2-4 times a year.

Regardless, the "right of the people to KEEP and bear arms" was always pretty clearly stated.

So I would argue the decade old interpretation is actually much older than that, because it was the original interpretation. People only changed it when they wanted to try to start disarming the populace. Much like the British did at the start of the Revolutionary War, which is why the Amendment existed in the first place, and was important enough that they felt the need to make it the 2nd on their list.

The same as when people say "the Founding Fathers expected people to have muskets" yet that was the exact same rifle the military had, and civilian merchant ships would have cannons. (Not that I am saying I need a cannon, for anyone who wants to only chip in with "oh, then we should all have nukes too, derp da derp?")

The point is that it had nothing to do with joining the military, and all to do with being able to maintaining a state free from oppression, regardless if that is external or internal as the British were both during that time.


- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -

If this convention happened, I would want it to be on the 4th. I still have no idea how civil forfeiture ISN'T Unconstitutional.

The 10th would be pretty good, too, considering how somehow we've gotten reversed on it. It's supposed to be the Federal Government only has the power that the States give it, but we've arrived at a point where the Federal Government is making all the choices on what a State can and can't do now.

[Yojimbo]

(09-19-2017, 01:53 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Sure, I'd like to see an Article V convention take place. Why? I think an Amendment instituting a 12 year lifetime limit on eligibility to hold a seat in Congress would be a great thing. Would also like see such an Amendment include items like doing away with the lifetime salary and benefits, as well as a provision making it illegal for congress to exclude themselves from any law or regulation that an otherwise common citizen would be subject to.

You want a more productive, more cooperative, accurate representation of the American public in office? Do away with the career politicians.

Edit: While were at it, a complete overhaul of campaign finance policy wouldn't be a bad idea, either. As well as getting rid of line items and addendums to aid bills. Completely ridding of professional lobbyists (or at least their ability to use money to sway policy) I got more, but that's enough to get started with.

Your edit is exactly what I wanted to comment on, with a slight difference. I don't think we can have a convention until money is taken out of politics, because it will just be the moneyed interests writing the new constitution to benefit themselves and make our oligarch government official.

[StLucieBengal]

Obama and the democrats have done their best to make this almost a reality. I am in favor of a CoS. There is a lot I would like for them to discuss. Term limits, balance budget, allowing states to overturn the Supreme Court, etc.

[StLucieBengal]

(09-19-2017, 02:19 PM)Yojimbo Wrote: Your edit is exactly what I wanted to comment on, with a slight difference. I don't think we can have a convention until money is taken out of politics, because it will just be the moneyed interests writing the new constitution to benefit themselves and make our oligarch government official.

Term limits is how you do that..... the only response would be for the money to prop up their own line of candidates

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 01:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Does gerrymandering affect state seats?

Yes. State legislature districts are just as susceptible to gerrymandering as Congressional. In fact, you may find it even more so for bicameral systems where both the lower and upper houses are gerrymandered.

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 02:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Eh, the people who tried to interpret it that way for a period of time were the people who don't like the 2nd Amendment.

When it was made, the "militia" was a guy riding out to the various farms and saying "hey, grab your rifles" and they'd all gather together. Bam, your militia. Basically a bunch of random guys with guns. They had no uniforms. So their ideas of "well regulated" is quite different than modern day. They wore whatever they owned, carried their own personal weapons, "trained" themselves like maybe 2-4 times a year.

Regardless, the "right of the people to KEEP and bear arms" was always pretty clearly stated.

So I would argue the decade old interpretation is actually much older than that, because it was the original interpretation. People only changed it when they wanted to try to start disarming the populace. Much like the British did at the start of the Revolutionary War, which is why the Amendment existed in the first place, and was important enough that they felt the need to make it the 2nd on their list.

The same as when people say "the Founding Fathers expected people to have muskets" yet that was the exact same rifle the military had, and civilian merchant ships would have cannons. (Not that I am saying I need a cannon, for anyone who wants to only chip in with "oh, then we should all have nukes too, derp da derp?")

The point is that it had nothing to do with joining the military, and all to do with being able to maintaining a state free from oppression, regardless if that is external or internal as the British were both during that time.

But the historical context is also important to keep in mind that the Constitution was written with no intention of a standing army existing. The militia was the army, and so when we look at the intention of the Second we must look at it in that context. The existence of a standing army was seen as a threat to the republic. Now, I could argue that since we have that threat in existence, removing an armed citizenry (creating another threat to the republic) would not be wise. But there is a deeper philosophical debate that could be had there and this isn't the thread for it.

My main point in this response is that when we look at the context of the original Constitution, we tend to ignore historical context that would be in disagreement with us. This is why I see it as important we revisit the document thoroughly.

(09-19-2017, 02:02 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: If this convention happened, I would want it to be on the 4th. I still have no idea how civil forfeiture ISN'T Unconstitutional.

The 10th would be pretty good, too, considering how somehow we've gotten reversed on it. It's supposed to be the Federal Government only has the power that the States give it, but we've arrived at a point where the Federal Government is making all the choices on what a State can and can't do now.

This is a sticky wicket in a lot of ways. I don't agree with going back to the dual federalism of the pre-Civil War era, but we definitely need to revisit the powers. Asset forfeiture is another good one, but also keep in mind that we have yet to see the 14th fully realized because it hasn't been litigated down to the state level for those things such as indictment by grand jury, jury trial in a civil case, and excessive fines. All things we have federal protections against, and should have state level because of the 14th, but because no court cases have gone forth they have not been incorporated into the 14th.

I digress.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2017, 03:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But the historical context is also important to keep in mind that the Constitution was written with no intention of a standing army existing. The militia was the army, and so when we look at the intention of the Second we must look at it in that context. The existence of a standing army was seen as a threat to the republic. Now, I could argue that since we have that threat in existence, removing an armed citizenry (creating another threat to the republic) would not be wise. But there is a deeper philosophical debate that could be had there and this isn't the thread for it.

My main point in this response is that when we look at the context of the original Constitution, we tend to ignore historical context that would be in disagreement with us. This is why I see it as important we revisit the document thoroughly.

That's actually not true at all. During the Revolutionary War, they had the Continental Army that was created by Congress (hence the uniforms, official training, paid service, etc) under a central leadership. Then they had the various supporting militias which were the aforementioned random dudes, some of them affiliated with States, and some of them just truly independent.

While it's true that the Continental Army was not intended to be a standing army and was dissolved after the war, the Revolutionary War ended after 1783, the 2nd Amendment was ratified in Dec 1791 and the creation of a standing army (Legion of the United States) was in combat of June 1792, literally just half a year after the ratification. The Legion of the United States stayed around until it got renamed the US Army.

At no time did they ever look at the 2nd Amendment, realize it wasn't what they wanted to say now that the US had a standing Army, and change it. Most of them were still alive in order to know if that is what they intended or not, too.

- - - - - -
So since the US started in 1776 that's...
-8 years of no standing Army
-233 years of standing Army

Or thereabouts.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

You see the discussion/argument over the Second Amendment here in this thread so I say there needs to be a CoS to clarify and make bullet proof the Amendments so no questions or concerns arise 500 years from now.

But I believe we should wait until after the Mid-Terms and see if the Left can pick up some State Seats and Gov's. I do not want Republicans "Clarifying" the Constitution, there is way too much temptation to trample on people's rights.

[Bengalzona]

(09-19-2017, 01:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Does gerrymandering affect state seats?

Oh yeah.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2017, 04:25 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: You see the discussion/argument over the Second Amendment here in this thread so I say there needs to be a CoS to clarify and make bullet proof the Amendments so no questions or concerns arise 500 years from now.

But I believe we should wait until after the Mid-Terms and see if the Left can pick up some State Seats and Gov's. I do not want Republicans "Clarifying" the Constitution, there is way too much temptation to trample on people's rights.

Obama had 8 years to fix things he wanted to fix, and last I checked we still have the NSA listening in on us, hacking people's smart TVs to use them as listening devices, civil forfeiture is still rampant, Guantanamo Bay is still open, we're actually in combat in MORE locations around the world than we were earlier, and drone strikes killing US citizens. Things got generally worse as far as rights violations go, not better.

You have long since lost the illusion moral superiority that "they're the ones who trample over people's rights, not us". You both do it.

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2017, 03:36 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's actually not true at all. During the Revolutionary War, they had the Continental Army that was created by Congress (hence the uniforms, official training, paid service, etc) under a central leadership. Then they had the various supporting militias which were the aforementioned random dudes, some of them affiliated with States, and some of them just truly independent.

While it's true that the Continental Army was not intended to be a standing army and was dissolved after the war, the Revolutionary War ended after 1783, the 2nd Amendment was ratified in Dec 1791 and the creation of a standing army (Legion of the United States) was in combat of June 1792, literally just half a year after the ratification. The Legion of the United States stayed around until it got renamed the US Army.

At no time did they ever look at the 2nd Amendment, realize it wasn't what they wanted to say now that the US had a standing Army, and change it. Most of them were still alive in order to know if that is what they intended or not, too.

- - - - - -
So since the US started in 1776 that's...
-8 years of no standing Army
-233 years of standing Army

Or thereabouts.

But you are neglecting the language of the Constitution itself.

Article 1, Section 8

Quote:12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13: To provide and maintain a Navy;

14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Notice all of the wording, but 12 especially. It is rather clear that the intent for a standing, permanent army was not there. Navy? Yes, but not an army.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-19-2017, 06:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But you are neglecting the language of the Constitution itself.

Article 1, Section 8

Notice all of the wording, but 12 especially. It is rather clear that the intent for a standing, permanent army was not there. Navy? Yes, but not an army.

And yet a standing Army was made and in combat only 3 years into Washington's 8 year stint as President.

Followed by Founding Father John Adams. Founding Father/Declaration of Independence writer Thomas Jefferson.

It's not like they didn't know they could change the Constitution, either, considering they added an 11th on DURING Washington's Presidency.

- - - - - - - - - -

Regardless of all of that, though. It still doesn't address the point that you claimed the militias were the Army, and in fact the militias were never the Army. Even if there was briefly a temporary Army, it was the Colonial Army, which was very distinct from the militias.

Regulars vs militia.

- - - - - - - - - - -

And lets just say we ignore the bit about being able to keep arms, and we ignore the fact that every President we've ever had has had a standing army, and we ignore the fact that the Military and the militias were vastly different things. All of which makes it pretty clear the idea of the 2nd amendment meaning being able to join the military is bullshit.

How about this?

Every male of 18 years or older in this country has to sign up for selective services. That makes every adult male a sort of militia, since they're able to be called up at any time in order to serve. Thus... all adult males should be allowed the right to keep and bare arms. (Sorry women, y'alls screwed until you wanna accept the "equality" of being drafted.)

[StLucieBengal]

(09-19-2017, 04:32 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Oh yeah.

We lost Allen West in my district due to this....