6 ms·

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 constrai

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...
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > The first constitutional convention was ratified by 9 out the 13 colonies, 2/3s. That's because the ratification of the Constitution wasn't governed by the rules for amendments, whether introduced by Congress or Convention, under the Constitution.
- q1w2 5y ago
  Never underestimate the power of large groups of people to do irrational things in a state of mania, and to pressure/harass the rest of the population into silence.
chrismcb 5y ago
There are a lot of people who want term limits. Even for their own candidates. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. Part of the problem is they start to lose touch with their constituents. I don't know the right length 2-4 for representatives and 1-2 for senators.
- kadoban 5y ago
  I used to agree with that. The problem, I've since been convinced, is that increases the power of lobbyists. If the only people that can stick around long enough to figure out how to get anything done are the lobbyists, they're going to have an even more outsized role in what laws get passed.
  - nradov 5y ago
    It's not just lobbyists. Congressional term limits would also increase the power of staffers, who would tend to just move from one Congressperson to another as they term out.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      True, but is that much better? Ideally I think we want the main driving force behind what laws are written to be the actual people we elect, right? Otherwise, what's the point?
- joe_the_user 5y ago
  There are a lot of people who want term limits. Even for their own candidates. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. That illustrates how ridiculous ideas get traction. Term limits are inherently anti-democratic. They don't end entrenched power but move it to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. The framers of the Constitution imagined wealthy gentleman farmers like themselves alternating positions in power. But term limits wouldn't bring that back, they just make sure that membership in congress would be even more held by the type of person who jump from CEO to congress to Federal bureaucracy and so-forth, reinforcing the "permanent government" situation that already quite strong here.
travisgriggs 5y ago
> 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. What if it became a 3/5s compromise sort of deal? No more fights over guns (we get to keep ‘em) and no more fights over abortion (women decide). We have that sort of today, but what if it were specifically enshrined as a formal recognition that each side got something it wanted, rather than the current state where both sides are doing something the other side wants to compel them to stop. Or even weirder thought experiment, what if both sides did a compromise that flipped both. “We’ll turn in all our guns if you have the babies”. I’m not advocating either position. I just find the thought experiment of a Great Compromise around two issues like this interesting to ponder through.
- kadoban 5y ago
  Are you by any chance seriously putting forth the 3/5s compromise as a positive outcome?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    And what were the alternatives? Do something that gives the south too much power and slavery will soon be too deeply enshrined in federal law to be rid of. Count slaves as 0/5ths like the north wanted and the south won't ratify the constitution and you'll get two nations, one of which definitely won't be outlawing slavery. The past is full of situations where people needed to chart the least bad course through a sea of bad options and they wound up doing an ok job at that. It's easy to sit in an air conditioned ivory tower and cook up internet comments that shit on those people for not having modern morals but other than the internet points I don't know of any useful end that behavior serves.
    - jakelazaroff 5y ago
      Slavery isn’t an issue of “modern morals”. Any Black person in the 1700s could have told you that it was wrong. The fact that slaveholders disagreed doesn’t mean it was some unsolved moral conundrum.
lettergram 5y ago
I agree with you largely, at the same time this is designed to avoid a civil war. Aka if the federal government over reaches the states can reduce the central authority. All that said, to call a convention, you’ll need a super majority of states. Theoretically, that super majority would also be the ones deciding what goes into the changes. For one, you’d probably get that much needed clarification on the second amendment. Although, I suspect it’ll be weaker than initially intended (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today). At the end of the day, it’s not perfect. Even what you brought up about abortion I don’t think would be considered. The “right” believes most of the regulations should be reserved to the states. I suspect instead you’d see an increased strengthening of states rights and a greater restriction on federal authority — which “helps” anti-abortion advocates but at also “helps” with California’s policies around Marxist policies. I’d much rather see a convention of states than a civil war. I personally think we’re at the “bleeding Kansas” timeframe of the coming conflict. I see no reason we won’t have a civil war at this point, unless we have something like a convention of states.
- no_wizard 5y ago
  Based on what evidence are we heading to a civil war conflict? I know partisanship is really high and such, but what recourses are failing so bad that we are heading into a situation that only armed conflict resolved? Yes, some idiots tried to storm congress and extremism is a real problem, that isn’t an oddity of absolute occurrence. If the UK can avoid civil war even with persistent IRA bombings I think we will too
  - lettergram 5y ago
    > If the UK can avoid civil war even with persistent IRA bombings I think we will too That wasn’t exactly the same, that was people from an occupied territory using terrorism. That occupied territory was effectively converted to a “free trade zone” and other agreements were made for a treaty. I’d argue something such as a convention of states may be a treaty or a negotiated settlement with the government that’s necessary. In terms of a civil war this is a pretty common opinion https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/09/16/is-the-us-headed-for-another-civil-war/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/09/16/is-the-us-h... We have half the country with different values. To the point where people in Florida today can’t travel to NYC and eat food at a restaurant inside (unless private medical records are disclosed). https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keytonyc.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keyton... California has as a banned state employees from going to Texas. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/california-bans-state-travel-5-states-anti-lgbtq-bigotry-rcna1293 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/california-bans-sta... BLM/ANTIFA burned down towns and killed people https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4... The mentioned capital riot you mentioned. The left “fortified the election 2020 election” https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ Historical figures defiled and removed https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/11/23/thomas-jefferson-statue-removed-nyc-slaveowner/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/11/23/thomas-jef... People fired for vaccines, voting for Trump, donating to rittenhouse defense fund, taken off the air and “cancelled”, so on and so on. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-police-officer-fired-after-donating-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund-n1264783 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-police-officer... Take a step back to history. Nazis in Germany or marxists in Russia took power in a similar way. They had burnings of businesses, removal of statues, firing people for not being part of the party, concentrating them based on the fact they spread disease (Germanys excuse for concentrating undesirables in camps in the 30s). Yes, we are already in the throes of a civil war, it just hasn’t been (too) kinetic yet. I personally don’t know if it will be a civil war or authoritarian take over, but what ever happens I think there’s a struggle happening right now.
randombits0 5y ago
There has never been a proposed amendment to reverse a right within the Bill of Rights. Doing so is antithetical to the entire concept of natural rights. But… If that’s what they want, that is the only honest way to do so. Good luck.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. Yes, there is, and it is specifically per the current Constitution; that is, the Constitution itself limits the agenda and outcome by excluding certain matters from amendment (a lot more earlier on, now most notably the equal representation of states in the Senate.) > If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion. I can imagine a convention proposing such an Amendment. I can't imagine it getting the support of 3/4 of the states needed for ratification, which is the main constraint on the impact of a convention—that it's outcome only matters to the extent a sufficient supermajority of states signs on to Amendments it proposes.
cameldrv 5y ago
Term limits have also been cited as one factor in the dysfunction of the California legislature after the mid seventies. Essentially the party leadership controls everything because the rank and file are all inexperienced and just vote the way the party tells them to.

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...
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The first constitutional convention was ratified by 9 out the 13 colonies, 2/3s. That's because the ratification of the Constitution wasn't governed by the rules for amendments, whether introduced by Congress or Convention, under the Constitution.
q1w2 5y ago
Never underestimate the power of large groups of people to do irrational things in a state of mania, and to pressure/harass the rest of the population into silence.

chrismcb 5y ago

There are a lot of people who want term limits. Even for their own candidates. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. Part of the problem is they start to lose touch with their constituents. I don't know the right length 2-4 for representatives and 1-2 for senators.

kadoban 5y ago
I used to agree with that. The problem, I've since been convinced, is that increases the power of lobbyists. If the only people that can stick around long enough to figure out how to get anything done are the lobbyists, they're going to have an even more outsized role in what laws get passed.
- nradov 5y ago
  It's not just lobbyists. Congressional term limits would also increase the power of staffers, who would tend to just move from one Congressperson to another as they term out.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    True, but is that much better? Ideally I think we want the main driving force behind what laws are written to be the actual people we elect, right? Otherwise, what's the point?
joe_the_user 5y ago
There are a lot of people who want term limits. Even for their own candidates. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. That illustrates how ridiculous ideas get traction. Term limits are inherently anti-democratic. They don't end entrenched power but move it to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists. I don't think we were ever supposed to have career congresspeople. The framers of the Constitution imagined wealthy gentleman farmers like themselves alternating positions in power. But term limits wouldn't bring that back, they just make sure that membership in congress would be even more held by the type of person who jump from CEO to congress to Federal bureaucracy and so-forth, reinforcing the "permanent government" situation that already quite strong here.

travisgriggs 5y ago

> 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. What if it became a 3/5s compromise sort of deal? No more fights over guns (we get to keep ‘em) and no more fights over abortion (women decide). We have that sort of today, but what if it were specifically enshrined as a formal recognition that each side got something it wanted, rather than the current state where both sides are doing something the other side wants to compel them to stop. Or even weirder thought experiment, what if both sides did a compromise that flipped both. “We’ll turn in all our guns if you have the babies”. I’m not advocating either position. I just find the thought experiment of a Great Compromise around two issues like this interesting to ponder through.

kadoban 5y ago
Are you by any chance seriously putting forth the 3/5s compromise as a positive outcome?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  And what were the alternatives? Do something that gives the south too much power and slavery will soon be too deeply enshrined in federal law to be rid of. Count slaves as 0/5ths like the north wanted and the south won't ratify the constitution and you'll get two nations, one of which definitely won't be outlawing slavery. The past is full of situations where people needed to chart the least bad course through a sea of bad options and they wound up doing an ok job at that. It's easy to sit in an air conditioned ivory tower and cook up internet comments that shit on those people for not having modern morals but other than the internet points I don't know of any useful end that behavior serves.
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    Slavery isn’t an issue of “modern morals”. Any Black person in the 1700s could have told you that it was wrong. The fact that slaveholders disagreed doesn’t mean it was some unsolved moral conundrum.

lettergram 5y ago

I agree with you largely, at the same time this is designed to avoid a civil war. Aka if the federal government over reaches the states can reduce the central authority. All that said, to call a convention, you’ll need a super majority of states. Theoretically, that super majority would also be the ones deciding what goes into the changes. For one, you’d probably get that much needed clarification on the second amendment. Although, I suspect it’ll be weaker than initially intended (ie the original 2nd amendment was owning any kind of weapon for any purpose, including equivalent of battle ships today). At the end of the day, it’s not perfect. Even what you brought up about abortion I don’t think would be considered. The “right” believes most of the regulations should be reserved to the states. I suspect instead you’d see an increased strengthening of states rights and a greater restriction on federal authority — which “helps” anti-abortion advocates but at also “helps” with California’s policies around Marxist policies. I’d much rather see a convention of states than a civil war. I personally think we’re at the “bleeding Kansas” timeframe of the coming conflict. I see no reason we won’t have a civil war at this point, unless we have something like a convention of states.

no_wizard 5y ago
Based on what evidence are we heading to a civil war conflict? I know partisanship is really high and such, but what recourses are failing so bad that we are heading into a situation that only armed conflict resolved? Yes, some idiots tried to storm congress and extremism is a real problem, that isn’t an oddity of absolute occurrence. If the UK can avoid civil war even with persistent IRA bombings I think we will too
- lettergram 5y ago
  > If the UK can avoid civil war even with persistent IRA bombings I think we will too That wasn’t exactly the same, that was people from an occupied territory using terrorism. That occupied territory was effectively converted to a “free trade zone” and other agreements were made for a treaty. I’d argue something such as a convention of states may be a treaty or a negotiated settlement with the government that’s necessary. In terms of a civil war this is a pretty common opinion https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/09/16/is-the-us-headed-for-another-civil-war/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/09/16/is-the-us-h... We have half the country with different values. To the point where people in Florida today can’t travel to NYC and eat food at a restaurant inside (unless private medical records are disclosed). https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keytonyc.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-vaccines-keyton... California has as a banned state employees from going to Texas. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/california-bans-state-travel-5-states-anti-lgbtq-bigotry-rcna1293 https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/california-bans-sta... BLM/ANTIFA burned down towns and killed people https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a455-4067-b06a-66f9db4cea9c.html https://www.axios.com/riots-cost-property-damage-276c9bcc-a4... The mentioned capital riot you mentioned. The left “fortified the election 2020 election” https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/ Historical figures defiled and removed https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/11/23/thomas-jefferson-statue-removed-nyc-slaveowner/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2021/11/23/thomas-jef... People fired for vaccines, voting for Trump, donating to rittenhouse defense fund, taken off the air and “cancelled”, so on and so on. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-police-officer-fired-after-donating-kyle-rittenhouse-defense-fund-n1264783 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/virginia-police-officer... Take a step back to history. Nazis in Germany or marxists in Russia took power in a similar way. They had burnings of businesses, removal of statues, firing people for not being part of the party, concentrating them based on the fact they spread disease (Germanys excuse for concentrating undesirables in camps in the 30s). Yes, we are already in the throes of a civil war, it just hasn’t been (too) kinetic yet. I personally don’t know if it will be a civil war or authoritarian take over, but what ever happens I think there’s a struggle happening right now.

randombits0 5y ago

There has never been a proposed amendment to reverse a right within the Bill of Rights. Doing so is antithetical to the entire concept of natural rights. But… If that’s what they want, that is the only honest way to do so. Good luck.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> There is no way _at all_ to constrain the agenda _or_ the outcome per the current constitution. Yes, there is, and it is specifically per the current Constitution; that is, the Constitution itself limits the agenda and outcome by excluding certain matters from amendment (a lot more earlier on, now most notably the equal representation of states in the Senate.) > If you are on the left, imagine the new constitution specifically forbidding abortion. I can imagine a convention proposing such an Amendment. I can't imagine it getting the support of 3/4 of the states needed for ratification, which is the main constraint on the impact of a convention—that it's outcome only matters to the extent a sufficient supermajority of states signs on to Amendments it proposes.

cameldrv 5y ago

Term limits have also been cited as one factor in the dysfunction of the California legislature after the mid seventies. Essentially the party leadership controls everything because the rank and file are all inexperienced and just vote the way the party tells them to.