Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where do you get the idea that Roe vs Wade is "unsatisfactory for the vast majority of American citizens"? Why, just because you disagree?!
Poll: Most Still Favor Abortion Rights
Generally, 59 percent say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a number that's held fairly steady the last several years.
Your link says at the very beginning that we are 28 years from passage of Roe v. Wade. That would have been in 2001. What is the date of that poll and article?
Let's do it. Right here, right now. Let's draft our own constitution. We've got voices from all levels of the political spectrum here.
Start drafting.
The problem is that, if you asked any state, or any political party to draft their own constitutions. Each draft would probably look similar to their own state constitutions, or their party platforms.
In order for a new constitution to take root, you have to have a debate between representatives of all of the states in this country. So that each of them can bring their own demands to the table, and work out something that all of them can agree to.
Not only that, but those representatives will have to take those ideas back to their own states, and make sure the people of their own state can even agree to those provisions. It would have to be an ongoing debate, which would be emotionally charged from all directions. Which would eventually culminate in something that can be adopted by all of the states.
I could probably propose what I think that constitution would eventually look like, but it would be a waste of time, because no one would believe me anyway. Since each person or group, will want to believe that their state or parties ideology, will be the basic template of the new constitution.
The Founders went out of their way to make sure it was not the state legislatures that ratified the US Constitution. Hence, "We the People, of the United States.." and not "We the States....
You are right that it wasn't the state legislatures. But you are missing the point. The state legislatures are a reflection of the people of that state. If you take Oklahoma as an example, all 77 counties in Oklahoma voted for both McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Every county in Utah voted for Romney in 2012. While every single county in Vermont and Massachusetts voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012.
The people of Oklahoma would be required to ratify the new constitution, and the people of Oklahoma simply will not agree to a constitution that guarantees the right to free abortion, or even the right to abortions for that matter. You can go down the list when it comes to issues and say, what will the people of Oklahoma and the people of Massachusetts agree to? Because they will have to agree in order for that issue to be included in the new constitution.
Whether or not it is the legislature or not, doesn't matter. The outcome will be exactly the same. And the people of Oklahoma will actually be less likely to compromise than our legislators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
What makes you think that any part of the present document would be used in determining the new one? In other words where do you get that 3/4 number? It is that number that the larger states would avoid like the plague. I really think that what you are suggesting would be quite impossible and would result in the split that many leaners have been talking about here for some time. Red and blue would go at it and 3/4 would never be approved by the blues.
I would agree with you that the individual states will not want to work together, and it would be nearly impossible for the any amount of the states to agree with each other on a new constitution. I think the fastest way for this country to fall apart, would be to try to force the new constitution on a simple majority of the states. To be practical, you would probably need support from 100% of the states, just like our original constitution only applied to the states who adopted it.
Like I said before, you might have several states who will threaten to secede, I don't believe it could actually happen. It is economically impractical to have secession, we are simply too integrated. Just like it is impractical to allow Greece to leave the Euro. Once the states really understand the implications of secession, they will back off. And they will be forced back to the table to work out something everyone can agree on.
And the only possible thing that could come out of a constitutional convention, would be effectively states rights.
The problem is that, if you asked any state, or any political party to draft their own constitutions. Each draft would probably look similar to their own state constitutions, or their party platforms.
In order for a new constitution to take root, you have to have a debate between representatives of all of the states in this country. So that each of them can bring their own demands to the table, and work out something that all of them can agree to.
Not only that, but those representatives will have to take those ideas back to their own states, and make sure the people of their own state can even agree to those provisions. It would have to be an ongoing debate, which would be emotionally charged from all directions. Which would eventually culminate in something that can be adopted by all of the states.
I could probably propose what I think that constitution would eventually look like, but it would be a waste of time, because no one would believe me anyway. Since each person or group, will want to believe that their state or parties ideology, will be the basic template of the new constitution.
Don't be a sore loser. That's get cracking on writing one up.
What do we need to start? A general idea? Should we use the US Constitution as a starting ground, or start fresh? We'd have to essentially devise an entirely new system of government to do that though.
Are we going with elections--are we still a democracy?
We have need to define how the federal government is organized.
How those leaders are brought to power (elections, appointment, etc).
We need to explain how and when the leaders meet, for how long, and those rules.
We need to define how we collect funds, and distribute them.
We need a means to change our constitution too. Society changes, so should its government.
I agree with this sentiment. The people could call for a new constitution, and in trying to create a new constitution, the division and discontent that is always around us, will become more obvious. And you will most likely see hostility from one area of the country to another. But there simply won't be a war, though there would most certainly be a huge rise in threats of secession all across the country. But there is just too much to lose for there to be a war, and there is too much to lose to have secession. Neither is going to happen.
A new constitution would have to be ratified by the states, most likely it would either require 2/3rds, 3/4ths, or even all of the states before it became active. I don't see how a East/west coast coalition is going to be able to force absolutely anything on the rest of the country.
What programs exactly, do you think will be supported by all of the states?
If you go back in time and look and look at our original constitution. As many have said before, there were federalists and anti-federalists. In the end, what we got was a very limited federal government, the entire constitution was designed to limit the federal government, not empower it. Probably half of the delegates to the convention were federalists, but yet, we still got an incredibly limited constitution in 1787. Why?
Because Southern states couldn't give up slavery and slavery economics. That's what states right meant. Simple as that. You can pretend it meant something else, but that's all it would be - fantasy. It is why they insisted on the 3/5 Compromise among other ways to ensure their "states' rights" wouldn't be trampled. Next question.
You are assuming that "red states" are red through and through and that "blue states are the same. It is most often the urbanized areas that are majority blue and the more rural areas red, so it not so clean as it was prior to the civil war, which makes sense because slavery stopped at the state border. These days, I'm not sure what the border is; it's more cultural than anything. Religiousness? Insularity? I'm sure there are well researched analyses out there about it.
You can see in these reliably red states that it is not simply a matter of a state seceding but rural areas having a disconnect with the urban areas, which is where most of the productive economic activity occurs.
Texas shows a similar pattern - economically developed areas around Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin went Democratic, and bordering counties were not as lopsidedly Republican. ------------
Because Southern states couldn't give up slavery and slavery economics. That's what states right meant. Simple as that. You can pretend it meant something else, but that's all it would be - your fantasy. It is why they insisted on the 3/5 Compromise among other ways to ensure their "states' rights" wouldn't be trampled. Next question.
You are assuming that "red states" are red through and through and that "blue states are the same. It is most often the urbanized areas that are majority blue and the more rural areas red, so it not so clean as it was prior to the civil war, which makes sense because slavery stopped at the state border. These days, I'm not sure what the border is; it's more cultural than anything. Religiousness? Insularity? I'm sure there are well researched analyses out there about it.
You can see in these reliably red states that it is not simply a matter of a state seceding but rural areas having a disconnect with the urban areas, which is where most of the productive economic activity occurs.
Texas shows a similar pattern - economically developed areas around Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin went Democratic, and bordering counties were not as lopsidedly Republican.
------------
Nice Maps. I want to add, RedShadowz, that we tried the "weak federal government" thing with the Articles. It didn't work out--the constitution might limit federal power, but it intentionally created a strong federal government in the process.
The crux of any new constitution should rest on proportional representation and an alternative to the current first past the post election system. Require all primaries to be open and let the top several vote getters advance to the final round; let people make multiple selections and the top recipients will win a proportionate number of seats.
It would require significant change to the way districts are currently drawn and how campaigns are run, but it would increase representation for people, and encourage people to vote their conscience without fear that they are simply throwing their vote away on someone who will not win and giving "the other guy" a better chance of winning. Here is a little about it: Single transferable vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are many valid types of voting, and most would be an improvement to our current system that encourages either/or choices. There are so many choices for everything else these days, we shouldn't have a system that tries to contain everything into two parties. There are systems that would enable minor parties with specific interests to be viable - that is what would truly give voice to regional interests. As long as we have our current stifling partisan primaries and winner take all general elections it will continue to be as it is...and as it has always been.
Because Southern states couldn't give up slavery and slavery economics. That's what states right meant. Simple as that. You can pretend it meant something else, but that's all it would be - your fantasy. It is why they insisted on the 3/5 Compromise among other ways to ensure their "states' rights" wouldn't be trampled. Next question.
States rights didn't come out of "slavery". If you understand absolutely anything about the constitution. You will understand that the Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states, only to Congress. Three northern states actually had state sponsored religions. The states wanted to regulate their own immigration. The states wanted to regulate basically everything themselves. And they were distrustful of a powerful central government.
Long before the Civil war, many northern states had argued for their right to secede, because they disagreed with things like the Alien and Sedition acts, and the impending war with Britain called the "War of 1812". In fact, before and during the war of 1812, many northern states actually thought about rejoining Britain, because they were angry at what was going on in the United States.
So to argue that states rights was an issue of "slavery", is utterly ridiculous. The concept of States rights, actually came about by the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. Which were created by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson in 1798, and had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. And James Madison in case you didn't know was the "Father of the constitution". Basically, Madison wrote our constitution, then 11 years later said that the federal government was already passing laws that were unconstitutional.
Quote:
You are assuming that "red states" are red through and through and that "blue states are the same. It is most often the urbanized areas that are majority blue and the more rural areas red, so it not so clean as it was prior to the civil war, which makes sense because slavery stopped at the state border. These days, I'm not sure what the border is; it's more cultural than anything. Religiousness? Insularity? I'm sure there are well researched analyses out there about it.
I never assumed that red states are red through and through. But neither is the United States red or blue through and through. I am saying that if the states vote on issues, their vote will be a reflection of the voting patterns that already exist in their state.
So while a new constitution might mean that the red majorities in red states might pass new laws that their blue inhabitants may not like. At the same time, a new constitution would mean that the blue majorities in blue states would also pass new laws that their red inhabitants won't like.
If you think the federal government protects the blue people in red states, or the red people in blue states, it really doesn't. It simply forces us to all suffer by the hands of both groups. By creating a system of conformity somewhere in the middle, that practically everyone hates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konraden
Nice Maps. I want to add, RedShadowz, that we tried the "weak federal government" thing with the Articles. It didn't work out--the constitution might limit federal power, but it intentionally created a strong federal government in the process.
In my opinion, if we had a new constitution, it would not be the articles of confederation. In my opinion, the result of a new constitution would actually be practically exactly the constitution we created in 1787, at least in how it was intended to be back then. Except this time, we would make sure to clarify the wording to prevent future courts from interpreting it to mean new things.
I do believe that this time though, we would tweak the election system, to allow for more political parties. We would limit the president to a single term of six years. We would put in place a line-item veto. We would have what amounts to a "enumerated powers act". We would limit acts of Congress to single topics, to prevent earmarks and bribes from being slipped into bills. We would toss out birthright citizenship. We would clarify the commerce clause, and clarify the powers of the federal government to tax, and for what purposes. I'm not sure what else, you would have to give me some time.
I like this kind of voting system... Probably the most practical for how this country works.
This is the most ridiculous crap I have ever seen in my life.
Do you really think that if all of the states had to agree on a constitution, that the new constitution would give the right to free birth control? Do you really think the liberal states would allow a stipulation that would make it illegal to have pornography?
The states would have to agree on these provisions, it would not be a simple majority. I can't hardly name anything in which every single state in this country agrees on. Other than that we need to have a military to protect our nation from foreign invaders. If we had a new constitution, I would even argue that there would be a limitation to the authority of the federal government to use military force, a limitation to the draft. I would bet the new constitution would prevent foreign military bases, other than in times of war. The result of a new constitution, would have to push us more towards non-interventionism.
Why would a state like Oklahoma, the reddest state in the country, agree to "right of free birth control"? What you said is just silly, and doesn't stand up to logic.
Just so we are clear. That wasn't a shot at you.
What I was trying to say is that I don't think liberals nor conservatives really support civil liberties anymore. I think 12 years of Bush and Obama and their sycophantic supporters back me up. I think neither of them care about civil liberties at this point and the compromises they would probably make would be the worst of both worlds.
If you were to support a new Constitution that would explicitly limit the powers of centralized government, make it explicitly clear that the Bill of Rights applies to the Federal, State, and local governments, would draw up clear protocol for declaring and conducting war, and have a Bill of Rights that offers extensive protection for all the current rights found in the current Constitution and maybe adds a few more negative liberties I would have no problem with that.
I just think the current climate would just lead to a very s---ty Constitution.
So to argue that states rights was an issue of "slavery", is utterly ridiculous.
I don't think that tensions about state religion, immigration, or talk about reuniting with Great Britain simmered for 75 years before leading to civil war.
I think that, whatever else, there is some agreement about reworking the election system to allow for more viable minor parties for people to express their views without feeling like the are being sold out by a major party and throwing their vote away to support someone else. There would probably be some more broad agreement on certain issues that are held up currently by small factions, things like some social issues maybe, but coalitions would form and negotiations would take place and coalitions would form to bargain for things. People would at least feel like they are getting some satisfaction and representation toward rational negotiations, even if things do not change as significantly or as quickly as hoped.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
------------
