4 ms·

This is even less likely to happen. A constitutional convention would be terrifying, because literally everything is up for grabs.

noobermin 10y ago
I actually am for a constitutional convention in which everything is up for grabs. Many of the recent years' controversies have been due to creative interpretation of the constitution. While I personally am happy for a few of them (gay marriage for example), many have stoked controversy. The best way to end the debate is to put it to the people to restate what their constitution means. We should not be afraid of democracy, either we trust the people of this nation to self-govern or we don't. Yes, I am not a fan of direct-democracy, but amendments to the constitution is more about deciding what is important enough to us to enshrine as part of the spirit of our law going forward. To give an example of the current desire for a convention, see the wiki article I linked elsewhere. A right wing group has had legislation calling for a convention to pass in eight states and a left wing group has managed to get it passed in five other states. Unfortunately, these groups are calling for different things, but it shows there is a brewing desire for a convention.
- macintux 10y ago
  > The best way to end the debate is to put it to the people to restate what their constitution means. It would be five times longer with likely significantly less wiggle room for future generations to cope with societal and technological changes, and most people would still be unhappy with the new version.
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    It's not a suicide pact. Future generations can just flush it and write their own. Only slavery can bind people to a constitution they don't want. We nitpick ours because we like 98% of it...
    - macintux 10y ago
      So we should throw ours out when we like 98% of it and none of us can agree on what a new one would say? "They're coming for our guns" would change from a paranoid rant to a call to arms if a new constitutional convention was summoned.
      - EdHominem 10y ago
        No, but you also shouldn't worry too much about making the constitution timeless. It doesn't bind us, it binds our government. It would be a healthier process for people to continually define the type of government they feels is appropriate to act for them than to accept some aged document as gospel. And especially because the government spends much time working around the constitution with things like Interstate Commerce which now is everything. If you hold the work sacred you can't consider fixing the revealed flaws. But yes, in practice it's almost always more practical to argue over the 2% rather than rewriting it all and rechartering the government.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > either we trust the people of this nation to self-govern or we don't We don't, which is why the government has many features, beyond the representative element, that slows and constrains the democratic process.
  - lisper 10y ago
    > We don't And we never did. When the country was founded, only white male land owners could vote. Ah, the good old days.

noobermin 10y ago

I actually am for a constitutional convention in which everything is up for grabs. Many of the recent years' controversies have been due to creative interpretation of the constitution. While I personally am happy for a few of them (gay marriage for example), many have stoked controversy. The best way to end the debate is to put it to the people to restate what their constitution means. We should not be afraid of democracy, either we trust the people of this nation to self-govern or we don't. Yes, I am not a fan of direct-democracy, but amendments to the constitution is more about deciding what is important enough to us to enshrine as part of the spirit of our law going forward. To give an example of the current desire for a convention, see the wiki article I linked elsewhere. A right wing group has had legislation calling for a convention to pass in eight states and a left wing group has managed to get it passed in five other states. Unfortunately, these groups are calling for different things, but it shows there is a brewing desire for a convention.

macintux 10y ago
> The best way to end the debate is to put it to the people to restate what their constitution means. It would be five times longer with likely significantly less wiggle room for future generations to cope with societal and technological changes, and most people would still be unhappy with the new version.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  It's not a suicide pact. Future generations can just flush it and write their own. Only slavery can bind people to a constitution they don't want. We nitpick ours because we like 98% of it...
  - macintux 10y ago
    So we should throw ours out when we like 98% of it and none of us can agree on what a new one would say? "They're coming for our guns" would change from a paranoid rant to a call to arms if a new constitutional convention was summoned.
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      No, but you also shouldn't worry too much about making the constitution timeless. It doesn't bind us, it binds our government. It would be a healthier process for people to continually define the type of government they feels is appropriate to act for them than to accept some aged document as gospel. And especially because the government spends much time working around the constitution with things like Interstate Commerce which now is everything. If you hold the work sacred you can't consider fixing the revealed flaws. But yes, in practice it's almost always more practical to argue over the 2% rather than rewriting it all and rechartering the government.
jessriedel 10y ago
> either we trust the people of this nation to self-govern or we don't We don't, which is why the government has many features, beyond the representative element, that slows and constrains the democratic process.
- lisper 10y ago
  > We don't And we never did. When the country was founded, only white male land owners could vote. Ah, the good old days.