Convention of States: Good or Bad?

[BmorePat87]

Looking at our Constitution requires us to look at the Articles of Confederation and see why it was changed. The obvious differences include an executive, taxation, the ability to fund a national army, equal representation in the legislature, no federal courts, and the ability to enforce laws.

People who advocated for a stronger national government like James Madison (principle author of the Constitution) and Alexander Hamilton, sought to fundamentally change how our government operated. The Articles were doing what they were written to do, but that didn't solve the problems that the country faced.

Our Constitution was great in 1787 when it was drafted, but it's due time we overhaul somethings. The basic composition of the three branches doesn't need to change, but I certainly would like to see Congress reformed. This could include term limits, though I am not in favor of this for a variety of reasons I have outlined here in the past. The bicameral system existed to both appease slave states and provide assurances to smaller Northern states that slave states won't dominate the legislature. Senators were elected by the state legislatures to ensure that the house where the states were equal were filled with more qualified individuals. Of course, the issue now-a-days is that

The Electoral College doesn't operate today the way it was intended to operate. When it was implemented, states had to send electors to the House to vote, with states having the freedom to pick their own method for choosing electors. Most assumed this would just be a show for the House to then vote on the President, as they assumed no one would win a majority. Of course it has evolved now to be a system where official tickets are nominated and we vote on that individual, however this idea of electoral votes has remained, despite every other aspect changing. It remains because it allows smaller states to remain more relevant and it won't ever be removed through our system because our system is designed to let a majority of small states with less population impeded progress. We couldn't even extend a number of rights to minorities until those states declared a rebellion and weren't part of the process.

This of course presents one of the flaws with a document that was a compromise for states that refused to allow progress to occur. We put a lot more emphasis on the importance of states than is really necessary in 2017.

I'm all for open dialogue on changing the Constitution, but the concept of a state convention only perpetuates one of the biggest flaws with the Constitution.