An Article V convention is in my opinion the most thoroughly boneheaded idea in American politics (which is saying a lot).
There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. In particular you can’t say (afaik) “we are calling an article V convention solely on issue X.” The linked article describes this as the “runaway convention problem.”
If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion.
If you are on the right, imagine it specifically forbidding private gun ownership.
There is no way to prevent those outcomes because an Article V convention is effectively saying “start over again from scratch.”
Separately I think term limits for congressmen are a dumb idea too. It will make party organizations much stronger. For evidence on this, see Mexico where nearly every public office is term limited to a single term. Second, very few people actually want their own congressman term limited (unless you voted for the other guy). They want everyone else’s congressmen (or the junior senator from Texas) term limited.
There are a lot of people who want term limits. Even for their own candidates. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. Part of the problem is they start to lose touch with their constituents. I don't know the right length 2-4 for representatives and 1-2 for senators.
> If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion.
> If you are on the right, imagine it specifically forbidding private gun ownership.
What if it became a 3/5s compromise sort of deal? No more fights over guns (we get to keep ‘em) and no more fights over abortion (women decide). We have that sort of today, but what if it were specifically enshrined as a formal recognition that each side got something it wanted, rather than the current state where both sides are doing something the other side wants to compel them to stop.
Or even weirder thought experiment, what if both sides did a compromise that flipped both. “We’ll turn in all our guns if you have the babies”.
I’m not advocating either position. I just find the thought experiment of a Great Compromise around two issues like this interesting to ponder through.
> There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution.
Yes, there is, and it is specifically per the current Constitution; that is, the Constitution itself limits the agenda and outcome by excluding certain matters from amendment (a lot more earlier on, now most notably the equal representation of states in the Senate.)
> If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion.
I can imagine a convention proposing such an Amendment. I can't imagine it getting the support of 3/4 of the states needed for ratification, which is the main constraint on the impact of a convention—that it's outcome only matters to the extent a sufficient supermajority of states signs on to Amendments it proposes.
If a constitutional convention actually happened it would be a mere formality. The new government would effectively have already been established by an informal process and written a new constitution. The convention would have exactly one item on its agenda: vote to accept the new constitution.
Term limits have also been cited as one factor in the dysfunction of the California legislature after the mid seventies. Essentially the party leadership controls everything because the rank and file are all inexperienced and just vote the way the party tells them to.
There has never been a proposed amendment to reverse a right within the Bill of Rights. Doing so is antithetical to the entire concept of natural rights. But…
If that’s what they want, that is the only honest way to do so. Good luck.
I agree with you largely, at the same time this is designed to avoid a civil war. Aka if the federal government over reaches the states can reduce the central authority.
All that said, to call a convention, you’ll need a super majority of states. Theoretically, that super majority would also be the ones deciding what goes into the changes.
For one, you’d probably get that much needed clarification on the second amendment. Although, I suspect it’ll be weaker than initially intended (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today).
At the end of the day, it’s not perfect. Even what you brought up about abortion I don’t think would be considered. The “right” believes most of the regulations should be reserved to the states. I suspect instead you’d see an increased strengthening of states rights and a greater restriction on federal authority — which “helps” anti-abortion advocates but at also “helps” with California’s policies around Marxist policies.
I’d much rather see a convention of states than a civil war. I personally think we’re at the “bleeding Kansas” timeframe of the coming conflict. I see no reason we won’t have a civil war at this point, unless we have something like a convention of states.
I would not trust the present day to create a viable constitution. It would likely be dominated by whatever party is in charge to perpetuate their specific platform rather than to establish principle based rules.
The original constitution is really kind of amazing at how well it’s functioned. It has flaws, obviously, but seems really effective.
On the other hand, modern countries who once used the US Constitution as a starting point for their own version no longer do, because ours is stuck two centuries back and there is no reason to believe we have the ability to change that.
I'll take a crack at it. How about a two-person consularship with a red consul and a blue consul? Together they wield full executive control, but nothing happens unless both agree on a particular action. Would you ratify?
Those flaws are pretty massive though. Legalising slavery and letting anyone and his dog own guns? That barbaric and doesn't belong in any constitution in 2021.
As the author well notes, a Constitutional Convention, unchecked and unregulated, could be means for disaster. We take for granted our Bill of Rights, on the daily. That said, luckily there's an entire process to follow to introduce and put into law any legislation.
I was myself unaware of Article V. The speed at which the internet went from STOP SOPA to DEPLATFORM AND CENSOR EVERYTHING startles me, and if that is any model, a Constitutional Convention would likely repeal every last semblance of freedom, and the ability to defend it, that we have.
Certainly don't want people who have the above attitude messing around with the Constitution. It's already bad enough many of them have made it into elected office or appointed to the bench.
While the idea of Article V is indeed fraught, anyone who thinks a lesser remedy obtains places excessive face in leaky vessels, IMO.
For this audience, consider the problem as a badly needed refactor. Whereas there were originally local, state, and federal government levels in addition to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the last century has seen collapse.
We're close to a unitary executive atop a Deep State, with a hollow congress/judiciary rubber-stamping the fiats.
A proper Article V plan would redistribute power, not wealth, and be fully sorted and in the can ahead of any convention. Such a meeting should be called to rubber-stamp said plan and preclude these runaway convention fears.
The more technically-minded audience of this site should be instrumental in delivering a plan that can't be commandeered (as easily) by the usual pencil necks.
For example: putting all of the legislation in a public git repo that anyone can read, hit with AI, and track what these congresscritters are getting up to, especially who is making the commits (!), which would obviously be people who stand for election.
I think it's worth nothing that prohibition was passed as an amendment because they had yet to establish the judicial precedents that allowed them to do those sorts of things through normal legislation. As controversial as it was then we'd only need a simple legislative majority and presidential signature to pass something even more onerous today.
I’m very worried about the US turning into a one-party theocracy. The actual institutional norms have been violated and the path has been laid. A very large portion of the country supports an authoritarian Christian theocracy as the future of America and it is terrifying. They are concentrated in smaller states that give these extreme voices outsized power in our current constitutional structure. I worry for the future.
A constitutional convention right now would only serve the interests of hostile foreign powers. At best the US would be twiddling its thumbs while the world moves onward from it. The US would become something like a geographic average between a third world country and a first world country. At worst, the US looks weak enough for a hostile power to actually, successfully invade and occupy.
The runaway convention is a real problem, but what would be odds of each outcome? I can't imagine the Constitution would be replaced in its entirety, that would be difficult to implement. I also can't imagine contentious issues going strongly either way, that would probably also be difficult to pull off politically.
No, a constitutional convention isn't close, and, contrary to the suggestions in that article, no particular threat to established rights would be posed by the lack of procedural guidelines for such a convention because any Amendment proposed by a convention would still need a 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
I personally think this is a great idea as a Constitutional Convention will be a free-for-all with no rules. We can then start from scratch on U.S. Constitution 2.0.
With a new codebase, we can do a total rewrite, getting rid of bad lines, and not having to have that explicit patch for slavery to be included during every recompile. We can also clean up some dumb redundant code like the 18th and 21st Amendments. Should have been done years ago.
And given we're a democracy, we should all vote yes/no for the new Constitution. I know where the majority of the people in this country stand on the issues (81 million to 74 million during the last presidential election) so I'm fine with this.
That would not work in actuality since a large portion of American politics is based on an extreme and literal interpretation of the Bible that is inconsistent with logic.
> Article V allows the states to call a Constitutional Convention if two-thirds (or 34) of 50 states submit a resolution proposing an amendment on one or many topics (or just a general call for convention without proposing a specific topic). Amendments proposed during a Constitutional Convention must also be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Since the first Constitutional Convention, Congress has proposed 33 constitutional amendments and 27 have been ratified.
In other words, it’s highly unlikely anything would pass a convention of states. That said, we are getting close given the dramatic over reach by the federal government
[+] [-] huitzitziltzin|4 years ago|reply
There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. In particular you can’t say (afaik) “we are calling an article V convention solely on issue X.” The linked article describes this as the “runaway convention problem.”
If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion.
If you are on the right, imagine it specifically forbidding private gun ownership.
There is no way to prevent those outcomes because an Article V convention is effectively saying “start over again from scratch.”
Separately I think term limits for congressmen are a dumb idea too. It will make party organizations much stronger. For evidence on this, see Mexico where nearly every public office is term limited to a single term. Second, very few people actually want their own congressman term limited (unless you voted for the other guy). They want everyone else’s congressmen (or the junior senator from Texas) term limited.
[+] [-] Mountain_Skies|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrismcb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] travisgriggs|4 years ago|reply
> If you are on the right, imagine it specifically forbidding private gun ownership.
What if it became a 3/5s compromise sort of deal? No more fights over guns (we get to keep ‘em) and no more fights over abortion (women decide). We have that sort of today, but what if it were specifically enshrined as a formal recognition that each side got something it wanted, rather than the current state where both sides are doing something the other side wants to compel them to stop.
Or even weirder thought experiment, what if both sides did a compromise that flipped both. “We’ll turn in all our guns if you have the babies”.
I’m not advocating either position. I just find the thought experiment of a Great Compromise around two issues like this interesting to ponder through.
[+] [-] dragonwriter|4 years ago|reply
Yes, there is, and it is specifically per the current Constitution; that is, the Constitution itself limits the agenda and outcome by excluding certain matters from amendment (a lot more earlier on, now most notably the equal representation of states in the Senate.)
> If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion.
I can imagine a convention proposing such an Amendment. I can't imagine it getting the support of 3/4 of the states needed for ratification, which is the main constraint on the impact of a convention—that it's outcome only matters to the extent a sufficient supermajority of states signs on to Amendments it proposes.
[+] [-] vzcx|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cameldrv|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] randombits0|4 years ago|reply
If that’s what they want, that is the only honest way to do so. Good luck.
[+] [-] lettergram|4 years ago|reply
All that said, to call a convention, you’ll need a super majority of states. Theoretically, that super majority would also be the ones deciding what goes into the changes.
For one, you’d probably get that much needed clarification on the second amendment. Although, I suspect it’ll be weaker than initially intended (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today).
At the end of the day, it’s not perfect. Even what you brought up about abortion I don’t think would be considered. The “right” believes most of the regulations should be reserved to the states. I suspect instead you’d see an increased strengthening of states rights and a greater restriction on federal authority — which “helps” anti-abortion advocates but at also “helps” with California’s policies around Marxist policies.
I’d much rather see a convention of states than a civil war. I personally think we’re at the “bleeding Kansas” timeframe of the coming conflict. I see no reason we won’t have a civil war at this point, unless we have something like a convention of states.
[+] [-] prepend|4 years ago|reply
The original constitution is really kind of amazing at how well it’s functioned. It has flaws, obviously, but seems really effective.
[+] [-] rootusrootus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vzcx|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] markdown|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rasengan|4 years ago|reply
I was myself unaware of Article V. The speed at which the internet went from STOP SOPA to DEPLATFORM AND CENSOR EVERYTHING startles me, and if that is any model, a Constitutional Convention would likely repeal every last semblance of freedom, and the ability to defend it, that we have.
Thanks for sharing this post.
[+] [-] Mountain_Skies|4 years ago|reply
Certainly don't want people who have the above attitude messing around with the Constitution. It's already bad enough many of them have made it into elected office or appointed to the bench.
[+] [-] jakelazaroff|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] smitty1e|4 years ago|reply
The ship of state is not on a good course.
While the idea of Article V is indeed fraught, anyone who thinks a lesser remedy obtains places excessive face in leaky vessels, IMO.
For this audience, consider the problem as a badly needed refactor. Whereas there were originally local, state, and federal government levels in addition to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the last century has seen collapse.
We're close to a unitary executive atop a Deep State, with a hollow congress/judiciary rubber-stamping the fiats.
A proper Article V plan would redistribute power, not wealth, and be fully sorted and in the can ahead of any convention. Such a meeting should be called to rubber-stamp said plan and preclude these runaway convention fears.
The more technically-minded audience of this site should be instrumental in delivering a plan that can't be commandeered (as easily) by the usual pencil necks.
For example: putting all of the legislation in a public git repo that anyone can read, hit with AI, and track what these congresscritters are getting up to, especially who is making the commits (!), which would obviously be people who stand for election.
[+] [-] NikolaeVarius|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway0a5e|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ABeeSea|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] no_wizard|4 years ago|reply
Most Americans are less religious[0][1] now then they ever were. Barring an unforeseen event, I don’t see how this idea holds water
[0]: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christ...
[1]: that’s Pew as in the research foundation not the church variety
[+] [-] ianai|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bcwarner|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dragonwriter|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russellbeattie|4 years ago|reply
With a new codebase, we can do a total rewrite, getting rid of bad lines, and not having to have that explicit patch for slavery to be included during every recompile. We can also clean up some dumb redundant code like the 18th and 21st Amendments. Should have been done years ago.
And given we're a democracy, we should all vote yes/no for the new Constitution. I know where the majority of the people in this country stand on the issues (81 million to 74 million during the last presidential election) so I'm fine with this.
[+] [-] ABeeSea|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lettergram|4 years ago|reply
In other words, it’s highly unlikely anything would pass a convention of states. That said, we are getting close given the dramatic over reach by the federal government
[+] [-] grzm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codevark|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]