• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional Convention - can it be done?

Waddy said:
Be careful what you wish for. Opening Pandora's Box. Which side would dominate this proposed Convention?
Click to expand...
I would expect that depends on how it's set up, and if those who think it can be limited to a narrow focus topic are right.
 
The Mark said:
I would expect that depends on how it's set up, and if those who think it can be limited to a narrow focus topic are right.
Click to expand...

The chances of ANY Constitutional Convention being limited to one topic are laughable. Once you open it up, you open it up. In fact, the people who opened it up in the first place won't be running it at the end.
 
Waddy said:
The chances of ANY Constitutional Convention being limited to one topic are laughable. Once you open it up, you open it up. In fact, the people who opened it up in the first place won't be running it at the end.
Click to expand...
That seems to be one of the disagreement points - some insist it cannot be constrained to a single topic, while others insist it can.
 
The Mark said:
That seems to be one of the disagreement points - some insist it cannot be constrained to a single topic, while others insist it can.
Click to expand...

I respect the difference. Just my reading of human nature and American politics says it will get out of hand pretty quickly. And it will get ugly. Maybe 50 years ago it could be done in a limited, respectful way, but these days? Broken glass in the streets...or worse.
 
Waddy said:
I respect the difference. Just my reading of human nature and American politics says it will get out of hand pretty quickly. And it will get ugly. Maybe 50 years ago it could be done in a limited, respectful way, but these days? Broken glass in the streets...or worse.
Click to expand...
Depends on the topic and how it's set up.

If it's a topic most everyone agrees on, and somehow other topics are not tacked on, should be ok
 
The Mark said:
Depends on the topic and how it's set up.

If it's a topic most everyone agrees on, and somehow other topics are not tacked on, should be ok
Click to expand...

Name me a topic in America "most everyone agrees on"? How would you stop people from adding on once the cat is out of the bag? Lock them out of the building?
 
Waddy said:
Name me a topic in America "most everyone agrees on"? How would you stop people from adding on once the cat is out of the bag? Lock them out of the building?
Click to expand...

The influence of big money in politics is bad.

Removing that influence, or greatly restricting it, is good.



Ideally, we should have publicly financed elections, and no private donations.
 
I do not like the idea of holding a Constitutional Convention when half of the government is composed of far-right authoritarian criminals and the other half is composed of center-right authoritarian criminals.

No Constitutional Convention unless Dr. Guillotine is attending.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I do not like the idea of holding a Constitutional Convention when half of the government is composed of far-right authoritarian criminals and the other half is composed of center-right authoritarian criminals.

No Constitutional Convention unless Dr. Guillotine is attending.
Click to expand...
Who says we have to invite any of the government to the convention?
 
The Mark said:
For sure, the negative influence of big money in politics is definitely a bi-partisan issue.
Click to expand...

I would agree to a point that what you said there is.

However to deal define "the negative influence" and how to deal with said negative influence, however, is something both sides are pretty split on I think.
 
The Mark said:
Who says we have to invite any of the government to the convention?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's going to work that way. But I gotta confess, I don't know how it's going to work at all... I don't think we actually have laws for it.
 
The Mark said:
The influence of big money in politics is bad.
Removing that influence, or greatly restricting it, is good.
Ideally, we should have publicly financed elections, and no private donations.
Click to expand...

So your Convention would open up the First Amendment? That could get crazy. And I doubt it would stick to the First Amendment for long. But I agree that elections are too dependent on big money. Fix that by limiting the scope and size of government.
 
The Mark said:
I have been pondering the constitutional provision allowing 2/3 of the states to call a convention, the amendment resulting from that convention then to be ratified by 3/4ths of the states before it becomes part of the constitution.

Wondering what opinions/info others have on this.

And if it can be done, can it be limited to a specific topic or topics?
Click to expand...

Impossible.

The U.S. is now so split down the middle on most issues that no agreement could be reached.
 
Zyphlin said:
I would agree to a point that what you said there is.

However to deal define "the negative influence" and how to deal with said negative influence, however, is something both sides are pretty split on I think.
Click to expand...
Organizations or individuals who can donate or provide funding in large amounts have an outsized influence on politicians.

Privately funded elections where no donations are allowed would solve this and put every voter on an equal playing field in terms of influence, at least in monetary terms.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I don't think it's going to work that way. But I gotta confess, I don't know how it's going to work at all... I don't think we actually have laws for it.
Click to expand...
The only reason we are even considering a constitutional convention is because the government isn't doing things we want.
Inviting them, except perhaps for some specific individuals who may be supportive, might be counter-productive.

As for how it'll work out - we may not need to find out.

In past instances, a large enough number of states calling for a convention basically forced congress to move.

Notably in the case of changing senator election from "picked by state congresses" to "elected by the people".
 
The Mark said:
Starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution


Result was this the 17th Amendment
https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/17th-amendment
This link includes a bit of backstory: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm



I'm having difficulty tracking down further info on the last two, and some of the numbered references (example: [XX]) appear to link back to the same page for some reason.

However, that Balanced Budget one they're still attempting (or at least some version of it), and are currently at 29 states, I think.

That Wikipedia page lists 4 ongoing attempts at various stages of success.
  • Wolf PAC - amendment that would ban corporations and unions from spending money on elections, and institute a system of public financing. - 6 states so far.
  • Balanced Budget Amendment - has a related wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget_amendment - 29 states, plus half the congress of another.
  • Citizens for Self-Governance -
  • Single Subject Amendment - proposing an amendment to provide every law enacted by Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be clearly expressed in the bill's title. - 1 state so far - Florida
Click to expand...

I would be on board for pretty much all of those examples you listed from wiki.
 
The Mark said:
Organizations or individuals who can donate or provide funding in large amounts have an outsized influence on politicians.

Privately funded elections where no donations are allowed would solve this and put every voter on an equal playing field in terms of influence, at least in monetary terms.
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with Waddy, the only way to truly get money out of politics is to limit the scope of government. As long as the government is involved in the market picking winners/losers then there will be those doing everything they can to be the one chosen as a winner. Without taking the incentive away, any other way of stopping it will simply push it underground. It would be better to have it legal and done openly, this way the people can simply see what it is they are voting for.
 
Nap said:
I pretty much agree with Waddy, the only way to truly get money out of politics is to limit the scope of government. As long as the government is involved in the market picking winners/losers then there will be those doing everything they can to be the one chosen as a winner. Without taking the incentive away, any other way of stopping it will simply push it underground. It would be better to have it legal and done openly, this way the people can simply see what it is they are voting for.
Click to expand...


have you ever considered repealing the 17th amendment, by doing so we return power to the state governments and reinstall a check on federal power and the senate can no longer be lobbied, because senators must vote as instructed
 
Nap said:
I pretty much agree with Waddy, the only way to truly get money out of politics is to limit the scope of government. As long as the government is involved in the market picking winners/losers then there will be those doing everything they can to be the one chosen as a winner. Without taking the incentive away, any other way of stopping it will simply push it underground. It would be better to have it legal and done openly, this way the people can simply see what it is they are voting for.
Click to expand...
It's impossible to separate the government from influencing the market - it could be greatly limited, but whatever the government does will have an effect to one degree or another.

For example if we move towards Medicare for All or some such, I would guess health insurance company stock will take a hit.

Deservedly, as they are part of the problem.
 
Master PO said:
have you ever considered repealing the 17th amendment, by doing so we return power to the state governments and reinstall a check on federal power and the senate can no longer be lobbied, because senators must vote as instructed
Click to expand...
The 17th amendment stemmed from an effort to call a constitutional convention, the first one that was successful by pushing congress to make that amendment.

It is a good amendment and should not be changed.

The issue of lobbyist influence would be exacerbated, not reduced, by returning senator selection to state governments.
 
The Mark said:
The 17th amendment stemmed from an effort to call a constitutional convention, the first one that was successful by pushing congress to make that amendment.

It is a good amendment and should not be changed.

The issue of lobbyist influence would be exacerbated, not reduced, by returning senator selection to state governments.
Click to expand...

its a terrible amendment , because it took away the states voice in congress, and their ability to protect their state powers, and it made senators free agents to be lobbied, and once that happened... faction in law making took over

i have so many times spoken about the 17th amendment, that if it was repealed the government would change over night.

today the senators 100 of them are in 1 central location and are free agents to vote any way they choose, this makes them able to be bribed with money and re election help by special interest , these special interest groups are not in the interest in what is good for the people, the state governments and the union.

they are interested in their own agendas, this is why people say the government is bought and paid for, why corporations own government, or that elitist run government..... because they do

the founders put the senate in the hands of the state governments to represent their interest, which is their state powers.

the senators are instructed how to vote by their states, this makes it so they cannot be lobbied.

pre 17th, if you want to lobby the senate you would have to lobby across 50 states, and bribe 7000 people of the 50 state legislatures, which is almost impossible.

by having the senate in the hands of the states, no federal legislation can be passed unless the people, the state governments, and the union is presented......the house is for the people, the senate is for the state governments, and the president represents the union, which is a combination of the people and the states based on the EC

specical interest groups flourish in a democratic form of government, which is why they are unstable and they will fall over time, the founders knew this and created a republican form of government

special interest groups are destroying the u.s.
 
Last edited:
Master PO said:
have you ever considered repealing the 17th amendment, by doing so we return power to the state governments and reinstall a check on federal power and the senate can no longer be lobbied, because senators must vote as instructed
Click to expand...

I'm all for localized government, I think having too much power centralized for such a broad area of peope is what is driving this country apart.
 
Master PO said:
its a terrible amendment , because it took away the states voice in congress, and their ability to protect their state powers, and it made senators free agents to be lobbied, and once that happened... faction in law making took over

i have so many times spoken about the 17th amendment, that if it was repealed the government would change over night.

today the senators 100 of them are in 1 central location and are free agents to vote any way they choose, this makes them able to be bribed with money and re election help by special interest , these special interest groups are not in the interest in what is good for the people, the state governments and the union.

they are interested in their own agendas, this is why people say the government is bought and paid for, why corporations own government, or that elitist run government..... because they do

the founders put the senate in the hands of the state governments to represent their interest, which is their state powers.

the senators are instructed how to vote by their states, this makes it so they cannot be lobbied.

pre 17th, if you want to lobby the senate you would have to lobby across 50 states, and bribe 7000 people of the 50 state legislatures, which is almost impossible.

by having the senate in the hands of the states, no federal legislation can be passed unless the people, the state governments, and the union is presented......the house is for the people, the senate is for the state governments, and the president represents the union, which is a combination of the people and the states based on the EC

specical interest groups flourish in a democratic form of government, which is why they are unstable and they will fall over time, the founders knew this and created a republican form of government

special interest groups are destroying the u.s.
Click to expand...
They had to do that because state governments selecting senators created a huge incentive for gerrymandering and other such methods to ensure a specific party controlled that government, and thus the picked senator they wanted.

The senators represent states as a whole, by being elected by the entire state.

This is IMO better than a state government-selected method.
 
The Mark said:
It's impossible to separate the government from influencing the market - it could be greatly limited, but whatever the government does will have an effect to one degree or another.

For example if we move towards Medicare for All or some such, I would guess health insurance company stock will take a hit.

Deservedly, as they are part of the problem.
Click to expand...

True, there will be to a degree but not as widespread as it currently is. The federal government should be limited as much as possible, most policies should be enacted at the state level which would greatly reduce the influence of large corporations as they would have to bribe politicians from each state rather than one centralized body making it much more expensive and difficult.
 
The Mark said:
It's impossible to separate the government from influencing the market - it could be greatly limited, but whatever the government does will have an effect to one degree or another.
Click to expand...

People don't understand-- maybe they don't want to understand-- that Economics is the study of the ecology of Civilized Man. All of Man's behaviors influence the Market, and all of the Market's cycles affect Man's behavior. Any new force introduced into either the Culture or the Market is going to influence (and be influenced by) the other.

The only people who understand this are corporate leaders, and they have a vested interested in making sure the rest of us don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom