Ok, so I've been ruminating forever on some things. Do you suppose

[silvershadow]

it might really, in fact, be time for a new constitutional convention? I mean, I know that the some Occupy group was trying, and I know about the history of that effort as well, but I don't want to talk about that except as a general example. On a bigger scale, though, with all of the political division, with all of the dumb-ass stuff like Corporate Personhood, with all of the corruption, graft, etc- Is it time for engaged, thoughtful people to come together and make changes, additions, clarifications etc to the constitution? I don't really see us being able to piece-meal it over time by amendments...they have all the gains now in might through law. We can try, of course, and should. Immediately, post-haste. But beyond that, should we demand a Constitutional Convention? How do we do that? I am not clear on how such an effort could legally take place? I welcome all comments, thoughts, and ruminations and thank you in advance for keeping it civil for me, I don't want to bash anyone in this thread, so please don't go there when discussing any past efforts by groups, Occupy or otherwise. I don't have a dog in any fight, as I wasn't part of it.

Edit to add: I'm looking for information. How do we do this? Do we ask our current members of Congress to join? Do we do it outside of Congress? What is legal? What is not?

[Sherman A1]

1. I too have thought that and I

believe that it is and it isn't.

We probably need a series of new amendments first to deal with the world in which we live as opposed to the 3 mile per hour world in which the document was written.

[silvershadow]

3. I think I remember some rumors about an amendment or two that Nancy Pelosi was considering.

But I don't remember what now, or if it was even true. I would fully support repeal or Corporate Personhood in its entirety. Maybe some other things as well. Might be able to move some things after 14, depending on how that election turns out.

[PoliticAverse]

2. The mechanism for calling a Constitutional Convention is specified in the Constitution itself...

For extensive background and discussion, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[silvershadow]

4. Oh, perfect! Thank you so much for this!

[graham4anything]

5. NO. Just get rid of the interpretation of the 2nd.

Wouldn't want any of the nut jobs in the republicantealibertarian anywhere near the constitution they never read, and they want to get rid of any forward movement we have had.

Thanks, but no thanks.

My personal opinion on OWS is that there being "anonymous" is about the stupidest thing they could do.
Be proud of your individual name
for you could all run for office in every single state, and turn a red seat blue
but being anonymous lets you be hijacked and comes across as anarchistic
(first lesson anyone should learn- V was just a movie, having zero to do with America at any time or place. Repeat- V was just a movie).

IMHO they should masse in all the red states and turn them blue

the great protesters in the 60s learned that working with the system and building from the inside up, is better than burning it down, just to watch the flames.

You gotta be in it, to win it.
otherwise they accomplish nothing

(and if this is about 3rd parties, forget about it, not after Ralph Nader threw the 2000 election to the repubs and made millions personally since then whining and whining. and being happy with the 2000 outcome, because it enabled him to make more millions for himself

as opposed to running for lower office and winning like Al Franken did, but that takes grunt work and means letting go of the $$$ materialistic things that were part of his life prior.
It means actually doing something constructive.
And also knowing when to be a team player.

NO to a constitutional convention.

Though Yes to reexaming the 2nd by a different SCOTUS after 8 more years in 2017-2025 of the continuation of the term of President Obama.

If you don't like something, vote them out

The revolution was won peacefully in 2008. And reaffirmed this year.
I wouldn't change a thing anymore but getting 10% forward each year, instead of 100% of nothing

BTW, 100% amnesty, 100% citizenship
the more citizens in, the more we can vote the rightwing out.

[silvershadow]

8. Thank you for your comments. I am proud of who I am and my beliefs. In fact, I have been very

vocal on FB for a couple of years. Think Alan Grayson type. I have debated many. I have posted much. I am finding my voice, and using it when appropriate. And, I am finally going to attend my local Democratic meeting upcoming this week. It will be my first attendance in many years. I can no longer just sit in my recliner (though I am quite disabled) and watch this on tv and read it on the internet. I have to get involved.

[Freddie]

6. There is a problem with one person-one vote

It's not happening.
House Democrats got over 1M votes than Repugs, but they still control the House. Not only due to gerrymandering but the limit of 435 in the House (which is not in the Constitution) also has the effect of lower populated (usually conservative) areas being over-represented. Not to mention the Senate. If the actual people of this country had their way we would have a Democratic House.
The limit of 435 started during Prohibition to check the influence of Eastern states which were, at the time, seeing a huge increase in population from European immigrants. An effort to "keep America American" (where have we heard that before?). Needs to be fixed.

[silvershadow]

9. What do they base the 435 number on? Do you know? I'm curious about your post.

First I've heard of this. I always assumed the number was constitutional.

[Freddie]

12. The 1910 census

A law was passed in 1929 (or around then) to limit the number of Representatives. Prior to that it changed every 10 years. From what I've read, the folks who wanted to keep Prohibition in place refused to allow changes to Congress based on the 1920 census because that year showed a great increase in population in Eastern states due to European immigration. And most of those immigrants opposed Prohibition.

[silvershadow]

13. Hmmm. I will have to go digging now. Wonder if it passed constitutional muster. nt

[Freddie]

15. "Last Call"

Book about Prohibition which was the basis of the Ken Burns series. Fascinating stuff and a detailed chapter on how this happened and other legislative games played by the "drys". A chapter of our history we don't think much about any more.

[silvershadow]

17. We sure don't think about it much, if this has happened. No wonder we are in a mess. I will

definitely look it up.

[Chathamization]

19. And DC is still denied statehood

With more people than both Vermont and Wyoming. The main reason being that the powers that be don't want two more Democratic Senators in the Senate.

[mmonk]

7. Yes but the powers to be have been too successful in dividing the people.

Thus, it is most likely impossible. The only thing we have is movement politics and that will take time. Probably more time than I have left on this earth.

[silvershadow]

10. I feel the same. THat's why I posted. I am no longer willing to wait it out. We must act

for our good, for our children, for the good of the country.

[Journeyman]

11. Why ever would you want to open the Constitution to reinterpretation by the likes of. . .

Boehner, McConnel, Ryan, Cantor, McCain & Graham.

You're only fooling yourself if you don't believe they -- or others just as whacked -- wouldn't have a seat on the Convention floor, or that they wouldn't sit on the draft committee.

[silvershadow]

14. Fair enough. I wouldn't want them there, that's for sure. Yet, when I think about the founders

they didn't exactly include those they didn't want to be there. Would there be any way to exclude them? I hear you, totally, on your concern.

[Spider Jerusalem]

16. The answer to that is, yes, the US needs a new Constitution

but it won't happen because Americans generally have a near-religious reverence for the current one, as flawed as it is.

The American system of government is antiquated, undemocratic, and ultimately unworkable; the quasi-monarchical presidency wields excessive power with limited accountability, and in times of a different party controlling Congress and the Presidency, the power struggle between branches, in the name of "elected legitimacy", is destructive to good government. The USA would be much better off with a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, with the real power vested in the lower chamber (another problem of the American form of government: the Senate is overly powerful and undemocratic, and the excessive and disproportionate power of states representing a minority of the population can amount to a tyranny of the minority).

[CanonRay]

18. I think we are far, far too divided

to come together and create a governing document. Frankly, I'd be terrified of what might come out of such a convention.

[silvershadow]

20. I think you are all correct on this. I guess we will just have to do it by amendment. nt