• 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!

Does the Article V Convention...?

As the saying goes, people fear what they don't understand. And regretfully, too many Americans do NOT understand the Constitution or really have a good understanding of American history.

JD1965 made a good point: "Many are under the impression that paid shills will re-write and ratify without consent of 75%+ of the states."

Too often in today's climate we have a lot of "experts" who spread disinformation to those who choose not to research since it pretty much tells them what they want to hear. There's nothing to be scared of in terms of the process. What is scary is how willing so many Americans are to be willfully ignorant.
 
JD1965 said:
Right? I mean, do people really believe that only members of Congress are smart enough to propose an amendment?
Click to expand...

They are after all the legislature - the body that passes law. And the Constitution is the law.

And how many of the public attended the Constitution Convention between May 25 to September 17, 1787 ?
 
Rich2018 said:
They are after all the legislature - the body that passes law. And the Constitution is the law.

And how many of the public attended the Constitution Convention between May 25 to September 17, 1787 ?
Click to expand...

There are only two Americans that can formally propose an amendment to the Constitution: 1) members of Congress 2) Article V Delegates. The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to believe that only members of Congress are smart enough to propose a proper amendment. Article V Delegates will be assembled to propose what members of Congress will not or cannot propose themselves.
 
JD1965 said:
There are only two Americans that can formally propose an amendment to the Constitution: 1) members of Congress 2) Article V Delegates. The point I was making is that it's ridiculous to believe that only members of Congress are smart enough to propose a proper amendment. Article V Delegates will be assembled to propose what members of Congress will not or cannot propose themselves.
Click to expand...

Then let others stand for election if they think they can do better and want to try.
 
What do you think Jason, would you ever openly advocate for a convention and help people get over their fear of it? We don't need everyone on the corner with a bullhorn. We just need a tipping-point to recognize what the convention is and the Congress will call it. It has been making moves to do so.
 
Rich2018 said:
Then let others stand for election if they think they can do better and want to try.
Click to expand...


That's one of the interesting pieces to this puzzle: the states have legally satisfied the convention clause of Article V and the Congress has yet been made to acknowledge it. Though, it has been counting the applications and posting them to the website of the Clerk of the House, so members are vaguely aware I suppose. Regardless, the call has to be issued before delegates can be elected.
 
JD1965 said:
What do you think Jason, would you ever openly advocate for a convention and help people get over their fear of it? We don't need everyone on the corner with a bullhorn. We just need a tipping-point to recognize what the convention is and the Congress will call it. It has been making moves to do so.
Click to expand...

What exactly is it that you want to convene this convention for?
 
Harshaw said:
What exactly is it that you want to convene this convention for?
Click to expand...

To exercise our ultimate right of alter/abolish.

That's what the convention is for, so we the living can formally discuss what is happening via dark money and zombie politicians. Doesn't that sound good? A months long discussion over amendment language, and then the ratification process where forums like this light up with debate--not about bogus rulings and legislation--but about how to make the system less painful. And when all is said and done, it will have educated three generations in government and civics, two subjects corporate America no longer teaches.
 
JD1965 said:
To exercise our ultimate right of alter/abolish.

That's what the convention is for, so we the living can formally discuss what is happening via dark money and zombie politicians. Doesn't that sound good? A months long discussion over amendment language, and then the ratification process where forums like this light up with debate--not about bogus rulings and legislation--but about how to make the system less painful. And when all is said and done, it will have educated three generations in government and civics, two subjects corporate America no longer teaches.
Click to expand...

Just change for the sake of change is silly. There is no point in going into something like an AVC without a plan of action.
 
Redress said:
Just change for the sake of change is silly. There is no point in going into something like an AVC without a plan of action.
Click to expand...

It's not change just for the sake of change, it's exercising our right to formally discuss our collective situation. Political polls of the past quarter century already indicate what the plan of action will be: addressing the corrupting influence of private money on public policy and other electoral reforms.

Liberals should be all for a formal discussion of how politicians operate. Fascists would not be in favor of allowing that, fascists would want the political status quo to remain in place as is.
 
Harshaw said:
To do what, specifically?
Click to expand...

You'll find very few who would like to abolish our form of government, but plenty would like to alter it with electoral reforms. So, in answer to your question, to do what? To discuss/build consensus about amendment language concerned with electoral reform. And if we know private money corrupts public policy, then specifically to propose an amendment which would publicly fund all elections for public office.
 
JD1965 said:
You'll find very few who would like to abolish our form of government, but plenty would like to alter it with electoral reforms. So, in answer to your question, to do what? To discuss/build consensus about amendment language concerned with electoral reform. And if we know private money corrupts public policy, then specifically to propose an amendment which would publicly fund all elections for public office.
Click to expand...

Why are we four pages into a discussion you started and this is the first semi-concrete thing you said?

This conversation has basically been:

"Let's talk about Article V."

What about it?

"Constitutional convention."

OK, what about it?

"It's something we can do."

OK, why?

"Because it would be great."

What do you want to do?

"Enough states want it, so let's have a convention."

For what?

"Don't you think we should have one?"

What do you want it for?

"What would it take to convince you have one?"

What do you want to do?

"Hold the convention."

Why?

"It's our right to alter or abolish."

To do what?

"Exercise our right to alter or abolish."

Why?

"Electoral reform."



Finally. Why didn't you just lead with that?
 
Harshaw said:
Finally. Why didn't you just lead with that?
Click to expand...

Being a filmmaker, thought you'd appreciate a curious narrative.... :) But your is characterization inaccurate, I started the thread to help people like Redress and yourself understand something you obviously do not understand. If you're a "libertarian" and asking Why about a convention, it appears you have no idea the political status quo is dead-set against you.
 
JD1965 said:
Being a filmmaker, thought you'd appreciate a curious narrative.... :) But your is characterization inaccurate, I started the thread to help people like Redress and yourself understand something you obviously do not understand. If you're a "libertarian" and asking Why about a convention, it appears you have no idea the political status quo is dead-set against you.
Click to expand...

My understanding is perfectly fine. I see no reason, nor have you articulated a reason, to hold an AVC. We can "have discussions" just fine without actually holding an AVC. Holding an AVC carries certain risks(actions taken that are not good for the country), so why take risks to hold a conversation you can have without those risks?

You mention "electoral reform", which is something that can be discussed without an AVC, and to me has worrying implications. Are you talking about limiting voting? Many have proposed requiring means or knowledge based requirements to vote, which would be terrible. Others have suggested eliminating the electoral college, which while probably nor harmful, is hardly necessary. Others have suggested ranked choice, which seems like a bad idea to me. There are I am sure other suggestions. None of them need an AVC, and none that I know of are worth changing the constitution for(and some would be actively bad). We make mistakes with amendments(see 18th amendment), so there would have to be some real reward for taking the risk, and you have not explained what the reward would actually be.
 
JD1965 said:
Being a filmmaker, thought you'd appreciate a curious narrative.... :) But your is characterization inaccurate, I started the thread to help people like Redress and yourself understand something you obviously do not understand. If you're a "libertarian" and asking Why about a convention, it appears you have no idea the political status quo is dead-set against you.
Click to expand...

Like Redress, I don't see any wisdom in calling a constitutional convention just to have one.

Give me a bona-fide reason for one, and I'm all for it. But trying to coax one out of you is like pulling teeth, and you've responded with nothing but vagaries. If you want to discuss it, why won't you . . . you know, discuss it?
 
JD1965 said:
To exercise our ultimate right of alter/abolish.

That's what the convention is for, so we the living can formally discuss what is happening via dark money and zombie politicians. Doesn't that sound good? A months long discussion over amendment language, and then the ratification process where forums like this light up with debate--not about bogus rulings and legislation--but about how to make the system less painful. And when all is said and done, it will have educated three generations in government and civics, two subjects corporate America no longer teaches.
Click to expand...




LOL. Zombie politicians? Are you a believer in conspiracies?

If you open up the Constitution for change, everyone will want to make changes and who knows what we'll wind up with.
 
Harshaw said:
Like Redress, I don't see any wisdom in calling a constitutional convention just to have one.

Give me a bona-fide reason for one, and I'm all for it. But trying to coax one out of you is like pulling teeth, and you've responded with nothing but vagaries. If you want to discuss it, why won't you . . . you know, discuss it?
Click to expand...

To expand on this just a tad for JD1965(and I was born in 65 by the way)...Harshaw and I do not agree on much at all. I respect him, but he is wrong about just about everything. We have completely different views, and viewpoints. So when we agree on something, that should be a signal...
 
And off topic, but I just saw this:

Goshin liked this post
Click to expand...

Now there is someone I have not seen in some time! Hope you are doing well sir!
 
Redress said:
To expand on this just a tad for JD1965(and I was born in 65 by the way)...Harshaw and I do not agree on much at all. I respect him, but he is wrong about just about everything. We have completely different views, and viewpoints. So when we agree on something, that should be a signal...
Click to expand...

I too, respect Redress, though he is wronger on just about everything. So yes, when we agree, stars are aligned and it is incontrovertible.
 
This is the first time I've read an entire thread in months, because this is a topic of interest.

The hope is that certain reforms could be instituted that Congress will not, or cannot, pass into law. Which reforms exactly varies depending on who you talk to.

The fear is that more will be changed than one wants changed. Exactly what changes are feared also varies depending on who you're talking to.

For most people fear is a stronger motivator than hope, so there's the problem.

And some of us remember that a former convention was only supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation, and we ended up with an entire new Constitution and a very different structure of government. Those who do fear that it could happen again, but not in a good way.


As for myself, I remain undecided, with hope and fear still in conflict. However like Redress I doubt it will actually happen... the entrenched interests have too much to lose.
 
Harshaw said:
I too, respect Redress, though he is wronger on just about everything. So yes, when we agree, stars are aligned and it is incontrovertible.
Click to expand...

In the words of George L. Tirebiter, "I never lie and I am always right".

Firesign Theater references FTW!
 
Redress said:
In the words of George L. Tirebiter, "I never lie and I am always right".

Firesign Theater references FTW!
Click to expand...

I'd figure you for more of a Capitol Steps man.
 
Goshin said:
This is the first time I've read an entire thread in months, because this is a topic of interest.

The hope is that certain reforms could be instituted that Congress will not, or cannot, pass into law. Which reforms exactly varies depending on who you talk to.

The fear is that more will be changed than one wants changed. Exactly what changes are feared also varies depending on who you're talking to.

For most people fear is a stronger motivator than hope, so there's the problem.

And some of us remember that a former convention was only supposed to amend the Articles of Confederation, and we ended up with an entire new Constitution and a very different structure of government. Those who do fear that it could happen again, but not in a good way.


As for myself, I remain undecided, with hope and fear still in conflict. However like Redress I doubt it will actually happen... the entrenched interests have too much to lose.
Click to expand...

Hi Goshin, nice to see you. When it comes to fear vs hope, remember that I would have a say in an AVC. Is that something you are really comfortable with? I can state with surety that some of what I would push for would be things you diametrically oppose(eg limiting the 2nd).
 
Redress said:
And off topic, but I just saw this:



Now there is someone I have not seen in some time! Hope you are doing well sir!
Click to expand...


Thank you, I am doing rather well. Got the heart issue under control, lost 70 lbs on the diabetic diet, and my knee is finally working properly again.

Best wishes to you also, Redress. :)

(I am also a 1965 baby btw)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom