• 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?

The Mark

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
34,918
Reaction score
12,308
Location
Pennsylvania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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?
 
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...

For what purpose? Just "to have one?" :confused:

I see no reason for one.

So perhaps if you point out some issues which would make such a convention necessary, they could be discussed?
 
Captain Adverse said:
For what purpose? Just "to have one?" :confused:

I see no reason for one.

So perhaps if you point out some issues which would make such a convention necessary, they could be discussed?
Click to expand...
There are multiple issues people might be interested in.

For example, getting money out of politics.

I've seen/heard arguments that congress never will, so we have to push for a constitutional convention to get an amendment doing so.
 
The Mark said:
And if it can be done, can it be limited to a specific topic or topics?
Click to expand...

In today's political climate and consideration of the strength of the 2 party dominate system, highly unlikely we would see a Constitutional Convention anytime soon.
 
OrphanSlug said:
In today's political climate and consideration of the strength of the 2 party dominate system, highly unlikely we would see a Constitutional Convention anytime soon.
Click to expand...

The issue would have to be bi-partisan.

There are a few that are.

For sure, the negative influence of big money in politics is definitely a bi-partisan issue.
 
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...

Sorry, but I don't think we will ever see 33 states agree to call a convention.
 
Mycroft said:
Sorry, but I don't think we will ever see 33 states agree to call a convention.
Click to expand...
I think it's 34, actually.

Possibly not, but the effort to do so puts pressure on congress to act (in the past, I think we've hit 32 states a time or two, and in at least one of those cases congress passed an amendment once they realized they couldn't' get away with not doing so anymore.
 
The Mark said:
I think it's 34, actually.

Possibly not, but the effort to do so puts pressure on congress to act (in the past, I think we've hit 32 states a time or two, and in at least one of those cases congress passed an amendment once they realized they couldn't' get away with not doing so anymore.
Click to expand...
When did 32 states call for a convention to add what amendment?
 
Iron River said:
When did 32 states call for a convention to add what amendment?
Click to expand...
Starting here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

1900s
In the late 1890s the House of Representatives passed multiple resolutions for a constitutional amendment providing for direct election of senators. The Senate refused to consider those resolutions.[46] In 1893 Nebraska filed the first Article V application for direct election of senators. By 1911, 29 states[47] had Article V convention applications on file for an amendment providing for direct election of senators, just two short of the 31-state threshold.[48] As new States were being added the threshold increased, however those States had already passed resolutions supporting such a Convention. The final count is somewhat uncertain, but when either one or two further states were required the Senate finally conceded and passed its version of an amendment in May 1911, which was then approved by the House in 1912 and submitted to the states.
Click to expand...
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

1960s
There have been two nearly successful attempts to amend the Constitution via an Article V Convention since the late 1960s. The first try was an attempt to propose an amendment that would overturn two Supreme Court decisions, Wesberry v. Sanders and Reynolds v. Sims, decisions that required states to adhere to the one man, one vote principle in drawing electoral districts for state and federal elections. The attempt fell only one state short of reaching the 34 needed to force Congress to call a convention in 1969, but ended by the death of its main promoter Senator Everett Dirksen. After this peak, several states (whose legislatures by this point had been re-engineered in the wake of the rulings) rescinded their applications, and interest in the proposed amendment subsided.[49]

1970s and 1980s
The next nearly successful attempt to call a convention was in the late 1970s and 1980s, in response to the ballooning federal deficit. States began applying to Congress for an Article V Convention to propose a balanced budget amendment. By 1983, the number of applications had reached 32, only two states short of the 34 needed to force such a convention.[50] Enthusiasm for the amendment subsided in response to fears that an Article V Convention could not be limited to a single subject and because Congress passed the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act in 1985. The act required that the federal budget be balanced by 1991, but was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1986. [50] In 1987 Congress enacted a reworked version of the law.[51]
Click to expand...

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 -
    In September 2016, CSG held a simulated convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution in Williamsburg, Virginia.[65] An assembly of 137 delegates representing every state gathered to conduct a simulated convention.[66] The simulated convention passed amendments relating to six topics, including requiring the states to approve any increase in the national debt, imposing term limits, restricting the scope of the Commerce Clause, limiting the power of federal regulations, requiring a supermajority to impose federal taxes and repealing the 16th Amendment, and giving the states the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation, or executive order.[67]

    As of 2018, CSG's application for a Convention of States has been passed in 12 states.[12]
    Click to expand...
  • 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
 
Something I don't understand: when a state makes an application to Congress for an article V convention, does it have to be for a specific amendment in mind? The way I read that clause in Article V is calling a national convention to propose amendments, it would have the power to propose any amendments they wanted to, not in response to specific instructions or that they'd have to stick to specific topics.
 
Last edited:
JimHackerMP said:
Something I don't understand: when a state makes an application to Congress for an article V convention, does it have to be for a specific amendment in mind?
Click to expand...

I don't think it has to be, but they can limit the scope of their request?
 
The Mark said:
I don't think it has to be, but they can limit the scope of their request?
Click to expand...

Damn good question. I'd think that once you convened something like that it would be bound by nothing. We mustn't forget that the last constitutional convention, specifically convened to revise the previous compact, wildly exceeded its instructions.
 
JimHackerMP said:
Damn good question. I'd think that once you convened something like that it would be bound by nothing. We mustn't forget that the last constitutional convention, specifically convened to revise the previous compact, wildly exceeded its instructions.
Click to expand...
I've read a tiny bit about this, apparently some opinions hold that a constitutional convention can be limited, and even if it gets a bit out of control, you still have to have 2/3rds of the states ratify any amendment before it is part of things.
 
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...

The top 0.01 of 1% and the corporations will be the ones writing that new Constitution, GUARANTEED.
This is the age of Citizens United, don't forget it.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The top 0.01 of 1% and the corporations will be the ones writing that new Constitution, GUARANTEED.
This is the age of Citizens United, don't forget it.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone's talking about writing a new constitution.
 
Right. But then again as I pointed out, once a national convention was elected and sat down to do business, you wouldn't be able to stop it from doing anything it wanted--provided it could con 38 states into ratifying its product(s). It would be the like the convocation of the Estates-General in France, in 1789: the opening salvo of the French Revolution.

However, if we're talking about something more limited, I started a thread in which I proposed possible amendments.

The thing about our ratification process is that it does lessen the effects of "the 1%" (i.e., the business interests trying to influence it plutocratically). Laugh at that all you want, but it's when you have popular referendums (or referenda, whatever) that special interests creep into the ratification process. Thankfully, our constitution vests the authority to approve/reject an amendment to either the state legislature, or to a state convention, not to the people directly. (If you don't believe me, just look at California. It's got one of the most "democratic" constitutions in the union, and its lawmaking process is a frigging mess. So is its political system in general, and special interests control it all.)
 
Last edited:
having a constitutional convention would be a disaster and lead to many corruptions.

first ... you would have to have delegates to a convention and they would have to be elected or appointed and those positions would be lobbied for............corruption right there

second... the delegates themselves once they are chosen they will be lobbied by every special interest group, even foreign governments, .......................corruption right there

third........ a place would have to be named for the convention to be held in, this would cause every kind of protest, extremist and special interest group to converge on that place vying to influence the amendment process.
 
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...

Its chances are about as good as three feet of snow in Florida tomorrow.
 
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...

There's no limit to what amendments they can propose.

They could dissolve the federal government entirely if they chose, and 3/4 of the states went along with it.
 
Harshaw said:
There's no limit to what amendments they can propose.

They could dissolve the federal government entirely if they chose, and 3/4 of the states went along with it.
Click to expand...
What reason do you have to think such a convention cannot be limited?

And assuming it can't be for the sake of argument, what possible reason would there be for 3/4th of states to go alone with dissolving the fedgov, if someone was insane enough to propose such a thing?
 
The Mark said:
What reason do you have to think such a convention cannot be limited?

And assuming it can't be for the sake of argument, what possible reason would there be for 3/4th of states to go alone with dissolving the fedgov, if someone was insane enough to propose such a thing?
Click to expand...

Nothing in the Constitution limits the subject matter.
 
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...

The TEA party has already signed up 12 states. It’s going to happen, and Democrats will be asleep at the wheel as always.

I have an old thread on this; didn’t take off. The only way to take back our Nation from completely incompetent and impotent politicians is for each of the 50 states to have a constitutional convention.

The wealth of ideas going forward is absolutely and critically needed.
 
Be careful what you wish for. Opening Pandora's Box. Which side would dominate this proposed Convention?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom