Is it time to have another Constitutional Convention?

[Ignacio Upton]

For the entire history of our republic, we have only used one out of the two methods for amending the Constitution at our disposal: have two-thirds of Congress pass amendments, and there have three-fourths of the states vote in majority to ratify them.
However, there is a second process that we can use: call a Constitutional Convention. This process is explained as the following:

The other way of amending the Constitution has never been successfully used. Under this procedure, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. When two-thirds of the states have submitted petitions, Congress must call a convention. Any amendments approved by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress decides whether state legislatures or state conventions will ratify these amendments.

http://www.lessonplanspage.com/SSInfoDiscAct-DoWeNeedANewConstConvention912.htm

What do you think? Should we petition our states to hold a Constitutional Convention? If we were to have one, which amendments would you call for to be introduced?
Here are mine:

1. A "right to vote" amendment that abolishes the Electoral College and limits the ability of states to deny suffrage to ex-convicts who have already served out their sentences.

2. A "right to privacy" amendment that codifies Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona, and explicity makes parts of the Patriot Act illegal.

3. An amendment stripping away corporate personhood

4. An amendment codifying "fair use" into copyright legislation and language that clarifies the purpose of copyrights and patents and trademarks. Such an amendment would also prohibit using Intellectual Property laws to grant a monopoly over life or lifeforms, especially over seeds and human DNA.

5. A "free communications" amendment outlawing licensing requirements to be able to operate over current and future forms of commercial media. This would make the FCC unconstitutional and prohibit the government from legislating websites out of existence. It would give non-print media the same First Amendment protections that print media has enjoyed.

[valerief]

1. Habeas Corpus would be nice. nt

[European Socialist]

2. People need economics rights--employment at a living wage or some kind

of guaranteed standard of living for everyone.

[Cleita]

3. It's worth looking into. I think we need to revise our

winner take all system, into something more Democratic, a multi-party system like a parlaimentary system where everyone has representation for their political views.

[frogcycle]

4. that would be a nightmare

can't you see all the right-to-lifers and school prayer zealots piling on?

It would be like congress adding "pork" to appease averyone.

Nope, I say stick with the one we have and amend carefully.

[Journeyman]

5. You don't sincerely believe a Convention would only consider amendments, do you?

What protections do you foresee to keep the Convention from trashing the present Constitution and forming whatever form of government they feel is best "for the safety and happiness" of the people? The original Convention overstepped its bounds; why should one today do any less? Do you really see any politician today equal to the best minds of Enlightenment? And given there are none, do we really want to turn our governing document over to the hands of the Liebemans and Giulianis of the world?

[Ignacio Upton]

8. Getting amendments through the current way is a pain in the ass

As long as we control Congress (and a majority of the state legislatures), such a process shouldn't be too hard.

[Journeyman]

9. That's because people wiser and more thoughtful than you and I planned it so. . .

Our "control" of Congress and the States hasn't yet led to restoration of the original document, so the belief a new Convention will only "modify" the original seems a misplaced expectation in the least.

[sutz12]

6. How about we just abide by the one we have for a while? nt

:shrug:

[LiberalFighter]

7. Who would appoint the members and who would they appoint?

Do we want to risk something like this?

[westerebus]

10. Where to begin?

Correct the second amt to state the right of citizens to own arms shall not be infringed and all matters here after shall be the exclusive domain of the states in this matter.
That consenting adults may join in partnership with the full rights of marriage partners irrespective of their sex.
That a declaration of war must be put a vote of registered voters who voted in the last presidential election. A simple majority carries the vote. The president must request a vote before taking actions other than the immediate defense of the nation, its' citizens or armed forces.
That health care is a right of all citizens of the USA. That all citizens shall receive a base of care through a single payer system. Additional insurances shall be allowed to supplement the base line of care determined by the medicare/medicaid schedules currently in effect.
That education is right of all citizens of the USA. That a national educational assistance bank be established for the sole purpose to loan money at a rate of one half of the Federal prime rate simple interest for higher education and trade schools repayable over twenty years post graduation.
I'm sure that there's bunches more.

[Forrest Greene]

11. Let's See If We Can Manage

...to hold a genuine, unrigged election, first.

[Adsos Letter]

12. Yeah, lets try and see if we can just get the old one functioning again

after all, opening up that "can of worms" in the present environment could be problematic, at best. Maybe I'm just jaded on the innate goodness of man at this point; which is, I guess, why they formed that Bill of Rights to begin with...

Make 'em return to the fundamental ideals of the document before we open it up to revision...just my 2 cents...

Where are they building those Halliburton/Blackwater camps, anyway?

[earthlover]

13. how about enforcing the Constitution we now have?....

[Phredicles]

14. Let's see an overturning of the $$$$$ = Speech Supreme Court ruling,

as well as a privacy right more explicitly spelled out.

But in the meantime, I agree that enforcing the Constitution we have now would be a nice start.

[ArbustoBuster]

15. A thousand times, no.

I don't want the ham-fisted imbeciles and lunatics who are currently in charge of our national discourse anywhere near our Constitution. Get the nation running on constitutional principles again, and make certain that the villains and the war profiteers are out of the loop or in prison, and then we can start thinking about changing things in anything other than an incremental way.

[Pab Sungenis]

16. Dammit, how many times do I have to tell you

21st Amendment.

[qdemn7]

17. Not just NO!, But HELL NO!

No Constitutional Convention.

[rasputin1952]

18. The reason it is so difficult to amend the Constitution is because

those who wrote the Document saw, first hand, all of the pettiness that arose during the Constitutional Convention. Delegates had not just their states in mind, but also personal stakes as well. One of the reasons out Constitution is so short is because room was left for debate for the good of the nation as a whole. The Articles of Confederation had collapsed for several reasons, not the least being personal and state squabbles. The Convention was a raucous setting, not the picture we have of sensible debate, it was quite heated at times, w/many a member threatening another w/physical violence. Through this, John Adams somehow patched together something that could be the basis for a government, that hopefully would benefit the people of the nation.

Thousands of Amendments have been proposed by various entities over the life of our Republic, thankfully, only 26 have ever made it through the process. Ten of those came out of 12 proposed and became the BoR's, of the other 16, one was repealed by another amendment. So far, we have survived, which shows me that this is a pretty good way to go about things.

We are not perfect, but we're on a pretty good road. We do not need draconian answers to situations we perceive as unfair and unjust, what we need are people with the spines required to debate and compromise w/o all of the name calling and finger pointing.

[mcscajun]

19. No, NO, and Hell, No! There's a big danger in opening that door.

If we ever had another "Constitutional Convention" there are no, absolutely no guarantees that anything in the current document would survive. Once the door gets opened, the entire document is up for grabs. Everything goes up for grabs in a Constitutional Convention. Everything we hold dear. Everything. You literally throw open the entire Constitution, without any exception, to total change. We could lose far more than we'd ever gain. We could conceivably have all of the Bill of Rights dramatically amended, selectively wiped out, etc. I shudder to think of what might happen under even the best of intentions.

I'm throwing in some old research I did when this came up at DU a couple of years ago. You'll find some unusual citations in here, in that I've used a combination of public records and certain wingnut sites. I don't apologize for this; when you're talking about Constitutional Conventions, it pays to know your enemy. Apparently a lot of conservatives, right-leaning libertarians, religious extremists, and several wingnuts have considered the risks of such a convention, while just as many support the idea. Paul Weyrich's fingers were in this some years back, also; what a surprise. :eyes:

I'm no constitutional scholar, but the fact that there's much uncertainty about the interpretation of Article V, how it would be applied, and who would be making the interpretations and decisions before such a convention was convened, gives me pause. And when even the guys on the other side have concerns, you must wonder if the risks are real, and the idea worth the risks. The biggest risk is the paradox: We can't know what the risks are until and unless we actually call such a convention, and then it would be too late to stop it.

When the first (and so far only) Constitutional Convention met in 1787 at Philadelphia, Congress stated it would meet ‘for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation’. Well, we all know how that turned out; a contentious time was had by all, the Articles of Confederation were abandoned, and they wound up writing our original Constitution. We have no guarantees that Congress or indeed anyone could stop a repeat of that event.

========================================================

Article V of the United States Constitution

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

========================================================

After the convention of 1787, when talk was brewing of holding yet another convention, Madison warned against it. Holland had recently loaned America money to keep it solvent, and Europeans feared a convention would negate that loan by some new procedure. Madison stated:

"Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper of America ...the prospect of a second convention would be viewed by all of Europe as a dark cloud hanging over the Constitution." -- Letter to George Turberville from James Madison, 1787.
http://libertylaws.us/id44.htm

Chief Justice Warren Burger (supposedly) wrote a letter to Phyllis Schafly in 1983. As Schafly was a member of the Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution (something that to this day boggles my mind) this shouldn't be too hard to believe.

I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’

With George Washington as chairman, they were able to deliberate in total secrecy, with no press coverage and no leaks. A constitutional Convention today would be a free-for-all for special interest groups, television coverage, and press speculation.

Our 1787 Constitution was referred to by several of its authors as a ‘miracle.’ Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risks involved. A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention. In these bicentennial years, we should be celebrating its long life, not challenging its very existence. Whatever may need repair on our Constitution can be dealt with by specific amendments."

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/burger.htm

When the repubs were busy in 1999 on the idea of embracing a limited Con-Con to address their pet issue of 'term limits', there was a bill up for consideration in the Judiciary Committee; here's an excerpt from the commentary:

Another problem with a Constitutional Convention is that even if it isn't a ''run-away'' convention (that is, even if the Constitutional Convention met to adopt only one amendment), the mere fact that the states met could have a far-reaching jurisprudential impact. Would the Supreme Court view a Constitutional Convention which kept the pre-existing Constitution as an implicit ratification of prior Supreme Court rulings? This would cause those on the left (who oppose certain Rehnquist Court rulings) and those on the right (who oppose certain Warren Court rulings) a considerable amount of trouble."

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju57226.000/hju57226_0f.htm

Corpus Jurus Secundum is a compilation of State Supreme Court findings. Following is the collection of findings regarding the unlimited power of the delegates attending a Constitutional Convention. Legal "experts" have asserted that it would be highly unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn findings from several separate and concurring State Supreme Courts. The footnote numbers after the citation quoted reference the particular cases from which the citations were made.

These citations, along with the letter from Chief Justice Warren Burger clearly and concisely tell us that if a Constitutional Convention were to be opened, for whatever "alleged" purpose, there would be no controlling the outcome. State Legislators have been lulled into a false sense of safety by assurances that there is no danger in a Con-Con because, "of course, you would never ratify a bad amendment or a total rewrite of the Constitution". What the State Legislators are NOT told - and probably 99% of them are unaware of the fact - is that there are two modes of ratifying an amendment, and the U.S. Congress decides which that would be. In other words, state's legislatures can be bypassed in favor of ratifying conventions.

From Corpus Jurus Secundum 16 C.J.S 9

The members of a Constitutional Convention are the direct representatives of the people (1) and, as such, they may exercise all sovereign powers that are vested in the people of the state. (2) They derive their powers, not from the legislature, but from the people: (3) and, hence, their power may not in any respect be limited or restrained by the legislature. Under this view, it is a Legislative Body of the Highest Order (4) and may not only frame, but may also enact and promulgate, Constitution. (5)

Citations:

(1) Mississippi (1892) Sproule v. Fredericks; 11 So. 472
(2) Iowa (1883) Koehler v. Hill; 14 N.W. 738
(3) West Virginia (1873) Loomis v. Jackson; 6 W. Va. 613
(4) Oklahoma (1907) Frantz v. Autry; 91 p. 193
(5) Texas (1912) Cox v. Robison; 150 S.W. 1149

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/corpus.htm