Crafting specific amendments to accomplish without misrepresentation is considerably easier than than creating a document better then what we have.
The one we have needs to be followed and with proper amendments and proper unambiguous congressional statues accomplishes that.
A Constitutional Convention is called to replace what is there and that is unnecessary. A Constitutional Convention would be an utter disaster and create chaos that would immediately drag the country into anarchy. To many local politicians and State Governors are Dem/Lib and would ensure disaster in order to mold this country to their way of thinking.
Amendments that repeal of the 16th & 17th Amendment, term limits on members of Congress, explicit spending limits, and a narrowing of the scope of the Commerce Clause. A ‘Federalism Amendment’ to strengthen the 10th Amendment (such as http://www.federalismamendment.com/) would create the reversal of course that many American are seeking.
Another step is to elect conservative individuals who believe in the original intent of the Constitution this November.
A Constitutional Convention is the WRONG answer and utterly absurd.
I disagree completely. Some of the suggested changes to the constitution have been waiting in the wings for so long that they were even integrated into the constitution of the Confederacy.
The problem is that there is no motivation at all within the federal government to improve itself in this manner, because they would be losing power to do so. Nor will there be in the future.
Only by putting the reorganization into the hands of the States, who as a group hold equal power to the federal government, and who are motivated to change the federal government, for *their*, the States advantage, will actual change take place.
I listed the three major blocks of Amendments that have been added to the US constitution over time. Each one of them was done for “sectarian” reasons at best, especially by the progressive movement. And that is where we got the *bad* ideas of the 16th, 17th and 18th Amendments.
The 19th Amendment, Women’s Suffrage, was done *not* for women, but because the progressives thought that women would vote far more for progressives than their husbands. An Amendment to increase their political power.
This is completely different from how the States would do things, because they would be acting in the furtherance of their own powers, not those of some small group or ideological faction, like the “Nasty Nellies” in favor of alcohol prohibition.
And the proof of this is that this is exactly what is happening right now.
States are forming “nullification” blocs, for gun rights, marijuana, against Obamacare, and for the 10th Amendment. No sectarianism in that at all. All to increase their State power at the expense of the federal government.
And this is what a constitutional convention would do. There is no proof at all that it would be a radical agreement, or that it would gut the existing constitution. Instead, most of its changes would be to add “clarifications” to existing misinterpretations.
A good example is the Commerce Clause. “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.
A constitutional convention would undoubtedly *add* to that, not take away from it, in such a way as to considerably narrow the scope of what the CC means.
This is not radical. It is anti-radical. And it is purely to enhance the power of the States.
You may continue with your pipe dreams that some candidate will wave their magic wand and correct 200 years of problems, with a few amendments, but it won’t happen, and even if it did will not be anywhere near the changes needed.