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.
Sorry but there is no 3/4 requirement if the people of the US decide they want a new Constitution. As soon as enough of them decide they want it the job is done. Might even end up with several new Constitutions and maybe a war or two to decide how many nations.
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.
Quote:
What I expect would happen is the east coast and west coast would coalesce with parts of the midwest. The rest of the continent would then be forced in. I would expect a brand new set of states dividing up some old ones and joining others. Could even get going good and absorb Canada and Mexico.
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 the constitution never would have been adopted if they had attempted to centralize power in the federal government, because most of the states simply wouldn't have ratified it. They basically had to create a document that protected state sovereignty to the greatest extent possible, while being able to solve the issues that had plagued the union because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.
I think that our country is already being torn apart right now. Both the people and the states seem to be moving further apart from each other, and the only means we have for reconciliation of these issues, is an un-elected, life-termed Supreme Court, who can't even agree with each other. While more of the important rulings end up 5-4 decisions than not(Obamacare, citizens united, mcdonald v chicago just to name a few recent rulings).
We have Texas at varying times threatening secession, and we will probably see more of it in the future from various other states. I think this country is becoming more and more like the country under the Articles of Confederation. With the states fighting with each other, threatening each other, and with the constitution simply being too unclear as to how to handle the problems this country faces. The reason the Articles of Confederation had to be replaced, was because the country wouldn't have lasted under the articles, the system was simply untenable.
In those times it was necessary to destroy the country, to save the country. And so they created a brand new government, when they came together to create our constitution. I think the same needs to be done again. I think a new constitution would be the redemption of this country, not its destruction. And would help to preserve this country, and the spirit of freedom, in which this country is supposed to represent.
In my view, and maybe I am incorrect in my sentiment. But, I don't believe the states are going to agree on much of anything. Just like the states didn't agree on much of anything in 1787. The result of their lack of agreement on 99% of the issues, was to leave those issues in the hands of the individual states. It was the only pragmatic solution to being able to preserve the country then, just like I believe it is the only pragmatic solution to being able to preserve the country now.
If you look at the history of this country. The only times states have ever threatened to secede, was when the federal government was taking away their rights, or forcing them to go to war when they disagreed with that war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc
Contrary to what "strict constructionists" say, the Constitution's ambiguity and adaptability are its greatest strengths. No document of any length can mean only one thing. Language isn't that precise. We have general principles, like freedom of speech, equal protection and due process, that are expansive and can be reinterpreted and society and technology changes.
The problem with that statement is that you don't even know what a constitution is. I mean, what is the purpose of a constitution at all, if it can be reinterpreted to mean anything we want it to mean? If you say that a simple majority of the Supreme Court can declare any law to be constitutional, and the Supreme Court is appointed by the elected officials who are also appointed by a simple majority. Then the Supreme Court is really nothing more than an extension of the legislature, or an extension of democracy(majority rule).
If you are basically arguing that the Supreme Court is nothing more than majority rule, then why have the Supreme Court at all?
What you fail to understand is that, the reason why a constitution is necessary, is because no one wants democracy. You don't want democracy, at least not unlimited democracy. The constitution was created not to protect the majority in a democracy. Freedom of speech wasn't created to protect the majority, why would you need to protect popular speech? If you argue that the Supreme Court can give any definition it wants to Freedom of speech, then you are arguing that the Supreme Court can make freedom of speech reflect what the majority of the people want freedom of speech to mean.
But that isn't what the constitution was for. The constitution was created to protect the minority. It was created to be a fixed body of law, which required not just a simple majority to change, but required practically everyone in society to agree unanimously that it needed to be changed. It required not just 51% of the states to agree, it required 75% of the states to agree, and 2/3rds of both houses of Congress(thus also 2/3rds of the population of this country). Both of those requirements actually make it nearly impossible to pass an amendment to the constitution. And that is what the framers of the constitution intended. They wanted to prevent democracy, they wanted to prevent tyranny of a simple majority. They wanted to make sure that if we were going to do something together, that we needed to all agree on it. That was the only way to protect the minority from the whims of the majority(tyranny of the majority).
What you are arguing is a total destruction of this country, because you don't understand what this country is, what our constitution is. People like you terrify me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mateo45
Which BTW, we can thank Ronald Reagan for encouraging, in 1980 right after receiving the GOP nomination for prez, when he first gave the official nod to "states rights" (aka, Jim Crow and segregation) in his famous speech in Mississippi, not far from the site of the 1964 murders of civil rights workers.
I am not going to argue that states always do the right thing. But neither does the federal government. To argue that the states are always wrong, and the federal government is always right, is ridiculous. Sure, you can point out many things where the states got things wrong, but you can say the same thing about the federal government.
States rights doesn't automatically make everything better, but at least it gives people more options.
In the case of Jim Crow. When Jim Crow laws first came into existence, the Northern states weren't exactly overly welcoming to blacks either. It really wasn't until after World War II, and the great migrations of blacks into northern cities for jobs to support the war effort in WWII, that you saw any push by northern states to do absolutely anything about segregation. Most northern states had segregation laws all the way up until the Jim Crow laws were overturned by the Supreme Court. One of the biggest opponents to forced busing, was actually a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, called Dorchester.
But for every argument that the federal government has helped this country, you can make a counter argument for the federal government hurting this country.
For instance, you may see "medical marijuana" being pushed in states across the country. But it is technically against federal law for any state to allow the sale of any marijuana at all. The federal government has it on the books, that it could come in and shut down medical marijuana operations in any of the states right now. It just ignores these violations by not enforcing federal law.
Right now, there are so-called "sanctuary cities" across the country where illegal immigrants live and aren't being deported. But those sanctuary cities are in conflict with federal law. And those immigrants by all measures should be deported by the federal government under its own laws. The president just refuses to enforce those laws.
You can go down the list when it comes to violations of rights, and say that the federal government does more to hurt people than anyone else. So to throw up an example to argue that the states are also evil, is by itself true, but such an argument doesn't make the federal government an angel either.
To argue that the federal government will protect our rights, while the states are nothing by tyrannical dictatorships that will strip away our rights as fast as they can, is equally illogical. The most probable outcome of states' rights, will be that some states will do things you don't like, while other states will do things that you like. Without the federal government, there might even be some states that legalize all drugs, like they do in Portugal. Some states will allow in even more immigration than we do now, like California and New York. Where would this country be today, if the federal government regulated marriage? The strides in gay-marriage came from states rights, not federal centralization.
All I am saying is, under a system of states rights, there are 50 states to choose from. Under a system of federal centralization of all authority, you are ****ed.
It is ridiculous for a rational man to assert that centralization is a good thing. The only people who believe that centralization is good, are the people who think they'll have the power under such a system, and those people want to force their way of thinking on everyone else.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-09-2012 at 09:16 PM..
With the way that the Left and the Right "compromise" on issues the Bill of Rights would be scrapped with some type pseudo-Bill of Rights that would enshrine "rights" like Right to Free Birth Control, Freedom from Flag Burning and Pornography, the Right to Pay Taxes, the Right to be Searched by Authorities Anywhere for Any Reason, and the Right to Bear Arms while Serving your Mandatory Conscription period.
redshadowz, i understand where you are wanting to go, and i understand what you think might happen, but the reality is that if a constitutional convention was called, we would be losing our rights as citizens. what you are forgetting is that back when the constitution was first written, there were few lawyers in the convention. if one were to happen today, there would be a TON of lawyers, and with all the legalese language, it would be easy to write out every constitutional right we as citizens have, and you can bet that the supreme court would uphold the eradication of our rights because of the legalese.
our current constitution is a remarkable document, and it covers just about everything that needs to be covered. and what it doesnt cover, the founding father put in the means to amend the constitution so that it does cover things they didnt think of, or were not around in their days.
Essentially we would be putting the Federal Government on notice.
And don't forget the State Constitutions .. These would be the protections we would need during a rewrite of the National Constitution.
States would leave the Union, like California and Texas .. during a rewrite of the national Constitution .. The nation, as a whole, would end up looking very different in the end.
Our current Federal Government would have absolutely no say in a CC .. only the States .. and DC would have no choice but to listen to what the States have to say.
The only way to change DC would be to have a CC .. The only way to clean out the corruption in DC would be to have a CC.
Hey there were many Americans pissed about Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade.
It isn't about "What the majority wants". It's about protecting people rights.
Yes but ask yourself. Had those same court cases been brought before the Supreme Court 100 years earlier, would that court have ruled the same way?
You aren't really arguing that the constitution protects peoples rights, you are arguing that the Supreme Court justices protect peoples rights. And just as many times as they have protected peoples rights, they have also stripped them away. Do you honestly believe the Supreme Court always gets it right?
Just because you can pull out an example of where the Supreme Court got it right, doesn't mean that the court was necessary to begin with. Do you honestly believe that we would still have segregation today, if the Supreme Court never ruled in Brown v. Board of education? Was abortion not legal in many states long before Roe v. Wade? Is abortion even a right? Is killing a human life a right?
Look, I am all for protecting peoples rights, but in my opinion, the states have a much better track record of protecting peoples rights than the federal government. The states have a much better track record of protecting peoples freedom, than the federal government.
What would have happened to free black men living in "free states" in 1820, if the slave states, who outnumbered free states at the time, would have enabled the federal government to regulate who was allowed to live in the states like the federal government does now? Where would escaped slaves have went, if the slave states were able to create a federal immigration force, which would basically hunt down escaped slaves who were living in northern states?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni
With the way that the Left and the Right "compromise" on issues the Bill of Rights would be scrapped with some type pseudo-Bill of Rights that would enshrine "rights" like Right to Free Birth Control, Freedom from Flag Burning and Pornography, the Right to Pay Taxes, the Right to be Searched by Authorities Anywhere for Any Reason, and the Right to Bear Arms while Serving your Mandatory Conscription period.
See? Both sides get to walk away happy...
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.
It seems to me that our constitution seems to create more questions than answers. And those questions are only capable of being resolved by the Supreme Court, and many times those decisions are unsatisfactory for the vast majority of American citizens(IE Citizens United, Roe v. Wade, McDonald v. Chicago, etc).
It seems to me that the best way to settle the questions in regards to the constitution and federal authority, is to just have the states come together and draft a new constitution, which could address and clarify the role of the federal government and the role of the states.
Who would object, and why? I mean, worst-case scenario, we just keep what we already have.
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.
You guys are objecting to my proposal, while agreeing with the basic premise of what I'm trying to accomplish.
The constitution may seem clear, but obviously the wording is simply too vague, and can be misconstrued to mean whatever the court wants it to mean. There must be a way to recreate the constitution where it is basically a bullet-proof contract that can only mean one thing.
Moreover, I was arguing that we need a convention to create a new constitution. Because our constitution, is becoming more and more a subject of disagreement and division.
I believe the best thing that could possibly happen in this country, would be to draft a new constitution, that would need to be ratified by the states, just as our previous constitution was. That way we can settle all the current issues that plague this country, without having to turn them over to unelected, life-termed Supreme court judges.
Can you suggest the manner that would be used to keep your new Constitution from being at least as long as the Obamacare law (2500 pages). When you try to cover every little thing that seems very important at the time of the writing you will find that page after page of pure crap will be put in and then you have a bigger mess than now.
Do you purport to write this Constitution without a court to determine what it says? I think that if you look around you might find that although many other nations have tried to copy our document they always run into the fact that it takes so many words to get it all done. Who will be the referee once you don't have a Supreme Court?
Is there a chance that progressives wouldn't be in charge of your convention? Unless that happens you can expect the new document to be something very much like what the CPUSA would approve of and many of us just wouldn't like it.
Do you want to do away with what our Second Amendment says so that the UN could establish the kind of unarmed populace that the need to slip in Agenda 21?
So many things make me wonder about all these things especially who would be in control of your convention.
Essentially we would be putting the Federal Government on notice.
And don't forget the State Constitutions .. These would be the protections we would need during a rewrite of the National Constitution.
States would leave the Union, like California and Texas .. during a rewrite of the national Constitution .. The nation, as a whole, would end up looking very different in the end.
Our current Federal Government would have absolutely no say in a CC .. only the States .. and DC would have no choice but to listen to what the States have to say.
The only way to change DC would be to have a CC .. The only way to clean out the corruption in DC would be to have a CC.
Yeah, I used to think secession was the only counter to the centralization of power in Washington. But secession is simply impractical and impossible. This country is just too economically integrated, so secession wouldn't work, and would just create chaos. And while I wish we could vote our way out of the problems we have in this country. There are just too many special interests in Washington who aren't going to voluntarily give up their control over this country.
I wish the problems in this country could be solved by the courts, but the courts and the activist judges, are actually a large part of the problem. Their 5-4 decisions do more to harm this country than good.
I have come to the conclusion, that the only way to solve the problems in this country, is through a new constitution, which will once and for all clarify the powers of the federal government.
At first you might be scared of a new constitution. Special-interests will certainly try to impose their wills on the new constitution, so we would have all kinds of weird new laws and powers in the new constitution, right?
Well, when you really think about it long and hard, you come to the realization that, the only result of a constitutional convention would not be an expansion of federal power, it must necessarily be a limitation of federal power. It must necessarily strip away massive swaths of authority that the federal government already has, and clarify those few powers in which the federal government will have, to prevent future courts from interpreting the provisions in ways never intended.
The reason why, is because the powers handed to the federal government, could only be powers that pretty much every single state believed the federal government should have. And there are very few powers the states all agree that the federal government should have, and those powers the federal government already has right now anyway. So the only direction the new constitution could possibly go, would be a restriction of the federal government and not an expansion.
But, while it restricted the federal government, it would expand the rights of the states. New York City and Chicago could again ban guns, while Vermont could continue to have nearly no restrictions on guns.
A new constitution would be better for the states than what we have now.
Wow, it is so obvious this election has freaked out the rwnj's. Crazy.
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....
Get over the election. You lost. It happens. Things don't always go your way. You don't get to throw out the Constitution, cause you lost. If you won, you all would be blabbing about how wonderful our system is and the Constitution. You right wingers need to take a serious look at your predicament. We need a viable opposition party, not a crazy party. Take heed of the demographic changes in the country, and adapt your political principles accordingly, or you will be an afterthought.
Do you really think a new constitution would be communist? Look, the healthcare reform wasn't even supported by the majority of people in this country. Moreover, to ratify a constitution wouldn't just require 3/4ths of the people in this country, it would require 3/4ths of the states in this country to agree on the constitution. Do you really see 3/4ths of the country agreeing to communism? Do you really see 3/4ths of the states in this country agreeing on much of anything?
The truth is, they won't agree, and that is a good thing. What will happen is, as the convention went along, the states would start speaking with louder and louder voices about what is good for their own state. What will end up happening is, the only way for all the states to get what they want, is to basically get rid of the federal government altogether, and turn over most of everything back to the states.
And while California, under the new constitution, might try to impose socialism/communism, it would simply fail as long as the other states are capitalist.
A new constitution should be the fix to all of the problems in this country.
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.
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.
