11 ms·

A Constitutional Convention is closer than you think (2019)

23 points by throwoutway 5y ago

NikolaeVarius 5y ago
If Prohibition could be passed in the USA, anything can be passed through the Convention IMO.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  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.
codevark 5y ago
There are several glaring (logical) flaws in the US Constitution. We should address those immediately.
prepend 5y ago
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.
- markdown 5y ago
  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.
  - jdpedrie 5y ago
    Those two things are in no way comparable.
    - tomrod 5y ago
      But they are, as both are no longer necessary in a civil, functioning society. Consider Europe, much of Asia, which have been able to achieve democracy, stability, and little need for open carry or slavery. Now, one has a lot of open supporters (gun rights exceeding the US second amendment, in that the regulated militia component gets left out).
      - harpersealtako 5y ago
        1) A more fair interpretation of the pro-gun argument would be that firearm rights are designed to guarantee long-term stability and democracy. The current stability of a small amount of relatively young democracies in Europe and Asia that do not have gun rights does not debunk the claim that gun rights protect against tyranny over the long term. 2) Considering the EXTREMELY violent, turbulent history of the last 100-150 years of governance (democratic and otherwise) in Europe and Asia, I don't think this is the strong argument you think it is.
  - fuckcensorship 5y ago
    > Legalising slavery The original constitution did not address slavery until the passing of the thirteenth amendment in 1865 which made it illegal except as punishment for a convicted crime.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise it's true that the word slavery is not used, but if you talk about free people and then note that there are not free people and make political rules for how those non free people should be counted, then in a slave holding society it becomes somewhat obvious who you're talking about.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  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.
  - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
    That sounds like a feature rather than a bug.
    - rootusrootus 5y ago
      Certainly there are different perspectives. I think many people don't trust that we have the ability to change the Constitution to suit modern American culture without ruining it. But it's also arguable that we could do much to clarify modern interpretation of principles that aren't as obvious given the dramatic shift in technology between 1789 and today.
  - zamadatix 5y ago
    1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade which was a pretty good clip IMO, churning enough that the 21st was to repeal the 18th for example. It has only really been the last 50 years it slowed down with the long proposed and relatively minor 27th amendment catching a second wind of state approvals. Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > 1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade No, it didn't. It averaged more than one per decade, which isn't the same thing. In that period you had the post-Civil War Amendments (3, between 1865 and 1870), more than 40 years with nothing, another burst from 1913-1920 (3 amendments), a burst in 1933 (2 amendments), one by itself in 1951, and then a flurry overlapping the end of the period from 1961-1971 (4 amendments, 2 each before and after your 1965 cutoff). And, just to be complete, after that you’ve got one solitary amendment in 1992 (the last of the 11 that have passed of the 12 proposed together as the Bill of Rights) and nothing since. > Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void. 61 from the 12th Amendment, the last of the fairly immediate post-Constitution ones, in 1804 to the 13th, the first of the post-Civil War ones, in 1865.
- vzcx 5y ago
  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?
  - erect_mom 5y ago
    Why do you guys keep dreaming up there bizarre forms of government when the parliamentary system exists and works well enough…
  - davemp 5y ago
    What happens when one person dies suddenly?
    - unclenoriega 5y ago
      The appropriate vice-consul takes over, presumably.
rasengan 5y ago
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. Thanks for sharing this post.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  >Your rights end where my feelings begin. 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 5y ago
  That's a pretty rich critique, given the staggeringly censorious regime you imposed after your hostile takeover of Freenode. Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27246755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27246755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27495358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27495358
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't take threads on flamewar tangents, and especially not on flamewars that have already flamed and been rehashed god knows how many times already. You may not feel you owe someone else better, but you owe the community better, because doing that is really bad for discussion quality. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
huitzitziltzin 5y ago
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.
- vzcx 5y ago
  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.
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  A runaway constitutional convention can propose all kinds of amendments but they each must still be ratified by three fourths of the states.
  - CalChris 5y ago
    The first constitutional convention was ratified by 9 out the 13 colonies, 2/3s. Rhode Island rejected it by referendum but ratified it by convention in 1790. It's a complex story. I remember reading that Washington avoided Rhode Island while it hadn't ratified. That was for the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights which came later and were ratified by Congress + the State legislatures. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-day-the-constitution-was-ratified https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog...
russellbeattie 5y ago
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.
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  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.
grzm 5y ago
(2019)
lettergram 5y ago
> 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
ABeeSea 5y ago
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.
- no_wizard 5y ago
  What objective evidence is this based on exactly? 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-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/ 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
  - ABeeSea 5y ago
    It’s based on the nature of the Senate and Republican gerrymandering of the house. A minority of extreme views from rural areas control the politics of America. A poll of “all Americans” is useless when the Senate exists.
bcwarner 5y ago
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.
ianai 5y ago
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.
smitty1e 5y ago
For those interested, the current hub of this activity (AFAICT) is => https://conventionofstates.com/ https://conventionofstates.com/ 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.
dragonwriter 5y ago
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.

23 points by throwoutway 5y ago

NikolaeVarius 5y ago

If Prohibition could be passed in the USA, anything can be passed through the Convention IMO.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
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.

codevark 5y ago

There are several glaring (logical) flaws in the US Constitution. We should address those immediately.

prepend 5y ago

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.

markdown 5y ago
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.
- jdpedrie 5y ago
  Those two things are in no way comparable.
  - tomrod 5y ago
    But they are, as both are no longer necessary in a civil, functioning society. Consider Europe, much of Asia, which have been able to achieve democracy, stability, and little need for open carry or slavery. Now, one has a lot of open supporters (gun rights exceeding the US second amendment, in that the regulated militia component gets left out).
    - harpersealtako 5y ago
      1) A more fair interpretation of the pro-gun argument would be that firearm rights are designed to guarantee long-term stability and democracy. The current stability of a small amount of relatively young democracies in Europe and Asia that do not have gun rights does not debunk the claim that gun rights protect against tyranny over the long term. 2) Considering the EXTREMELY violent, turbulent history of the last 100-150 years of governance (democratic and otherwise) in Europe and Asia, I don't think this is the strong argument you think it is.
- fuckcensorship 5y ago
  > Legalising slavery The original constitution did not address slavery until the passing of the thirteenth amendment in 1865 which made it illegal except as punishment for a convicted crime.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise it's true that the word slavery is not used, but if you talk about free people and then note that there are not free people and make political rules for how those non free people should be counted, then in a slave holding society it becomes somewhat obvious who you're talking about.
rootusrootus 5y ago
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.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  That sounds like a feature rather than a bug.
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    Certainly there are different perspectives. I think many people don't trust that we have the ability to change the Constitution to suit modern American culture without ruining it. But it's also arguable that we could do much to clarify modern interpretation of principles that aren't as obvious given the dramatic shift in technology between 1789 and today.
- zamadatix 5y ago
  1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade which was a pretty good clip IMO, churning enough that the 21st was to repeal the 18th for example. It has only really been the last 50 years it slowed down with the long proposed and relatively minor 27th amendment catching a second wind of state approvals. Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > 1865-1965 saw more than 1 amendment per decade No, it didn't. It averaged more than one per decade, which isn't the same thing. In that period you had the post-Civil War Amendments (3, between 1865 and 1870), more than 40 years with nothing, another burst from 1913-1920 (3 amendments), a burst in 1933 (2 amendments), one by itself in 1951, and then a flurry overlapping the end of the period from 1961-1971 (4 amendments, 2 each before and after your 1965 cutoff). And, just to be complete, after that you’ve got one solitary amendment in 1992 (the last of the 11 that have passed of the 12 proposed together as the Bill of Rights) and nothing since. > Not the longest dry spell either, the early 1800s also had a 50ish year void. 61 from the 12th Amendment, the last of the fairly immediate post-Constitution ones, in 1804 to the 13th, the first of the post-Civil War ones, in 1865.
vzcx 5y ago
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?
- erect_mom 5y ago
  Why do you guys keep dreaming up there bizarre forms of government when the parliamentary system exists and works well enough…
- davemp 5y ago
  What happens when one person dies suddenly?
  - unclenoriega 5y ago
    The appropriate vice-consul takes over, presumably.

rasengan 5y ago

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. Thanks for sharing this post.

Mountain_Skies 5y ago
>Your rights end where my feelings begin. 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 5y ago
That's a pretty rich critique, given the staggeringly censorious regime you imposed after your hostile takeover of Freenode. Context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27246755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27246755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27495358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27495358
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take threads on flamewar tangents, and especially not on flamewars that have already flamed and been rehashed god knows how many times already. You may not feel you owe someone else better, but you owe the community better, because doing that is really bad for discussion quality. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

huitzitziltzin 5y ago

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.

vzcx 5y ago
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.
Mountain_Skies 5y ago
A runaway constitutional convention can propose all kinds of amendments but they each must still be ratified by three fourths of the states.
- CalChris 5y ago
  The first constitutional convention was ratified by 9 out the 13 colonies, 2/3s. Rhode Island rejected it by referendum but ratified it by convention in 1790. It's a complex story. I remember reading that Washington avoided Rhode Island while it hadn't ratified. That was for the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights which came later and were ratified by Congress + the State legislatures. https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog/the-day-the-constitution-was-ratified https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/blog...

russellbeattie 5y ago

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.

ABeeSea 5y ago
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.

grzm 5y ago

(2019)

lettergram 5y ago

> 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

ABeeSea 5y ago

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.

no_wizard 5y ago
What objective evidence is this based on exactly? 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-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/ 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
- ABeeSea 5y ago
  It’s based on the nature of the Senate and Republican gerrymandering of the house. A minority of extreme views from rural areas control the politics of America. A poll of “all Americans” is useless when the Senate exists.

bcwarner 5y ago

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.

ianai 5y ago

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.

smitty1e 5y ago

For those interested, the current hub of this activity (AFAICT) is => https://conventionofstates.com/ https://conventionofstates.com/ 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.

dragonwriter 5y ago

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.