3 ms·
> We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution. Uh you can achieve that via amendments. And just who is going to write this new Co
by thatswrong0 9y ago
> We don't just need a Constitutional amendment, we need a new Constitution.
Uh you can achieve that via amendments. And just who is going to write this new Constitution?
> Washington is entirely a function of the rules that are set by the Constitution.
And all of the Supreme Court precedents that have bent the hell out of the document such that it's hardly the same document that it was 200 years ago.
States could, if they wanted to, implement proportional representation themselves without having to amend the Constitution. It obviously wouldn't mean that the entirety of Congress is proportional, but it'd be a start.
- JumpCrisscross 9y agoSeriously. The last Constitutional Convention was convened to amend the Articles of Confederation. It wrote a new system of government. If you don't like our elected leaders, understand that a constitutional convention means giving them, as a convention, absolute power to do anything.
- elihu 9y agoNot really; if the convention proposes an amendment that isn't ratified by 3/4ths of states, things stay as they are. Even a constitutional convention has checks and balances. (Historically, states have used the threat of a convention to force congress to act on issues where they were dragging their feet.)
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> Even a constitutional convention has checks and balances Any checks passed before the convention are null and void when it starts. The checks find force in the constitution being nullified by the convention. Constitutional conventions are temporary autocracies. Established when needed, but never to be lightly considered.