Do We Need A New Constitutional Convention?

LessonPlanPage.com ^ | 1/25/2006 | Andrew Costly

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

This is very good reading. It put some light as to why it is hard to get anything done!

[MNJohnnie]

Kiss the 2nd Amendment good bye if you do this.

[supercat]

Were it not for the necessity of going through Congress, I would think an amendment to slightly change the Electoral College might do well in 38 states. Abolishing the EC probably wouldn't fly (at least I'd hope not!) but specifying that states must allocate at least one vote per congressional district to the winner of that district might (each state would get to decide via its own constitution or legislature how to cast two of its votes).

The number of states that would gain power from such a proposal exceeds 38, so I'd think it might fly.

[bcsco]

No! The Constitution is the Constitution is the Constitution. Live by it or get out!

[K-oneTexas]

Amazing how time flies. Of course the DNC could write one in ... oh, say 5 minutes. After all Lehey, Kennedy, Schumer, Finegold, Durbin, and Finstien know all about one. And how to read it. (Aren't we sooo lucky to have them)

Now for the real stuff:

In 1777, one year after the U.S. gained independence, the original Articles of Confederation were written. The Articles came into force in 1781. However, by 1783, the original 13 colonies had realized that the Articles wouldn't work as a viable national government, so they started over. It took until May 1787 for the various state delegates to the Second Constitutional Convention to show up, and it took until September of the same year for the Constitution as we know it to be written and approved by the Convention. The new Constitution also had with it the first set of amendments, what we now know as the Bill of Rights. In other words, it took the former colonies a year to write the first attempt at a constitution and six years to realize they'd messed up. It then took another four years to work through enough details behind the scenes to make the Second Constitutional Convention worthwhile, and then it took five months to get wording that nearly everyone could agree on, and even then the Constitution still needed to be augmented by a Bill of Rights.

After World War II, General MacArthur was given the responsibility for the occupation of Japan. Part of his responsibility was writing a new constitution. The constitution was based in many respects on the U.S. Constitution, but was adapted somewhat to Japanese cultural needs. It took only a year for the new Japanese constitution to be written, signed, and put into place a new democratic national government in Japan. However, Japan was a nation defeated economically and socially by four years of war in the Pacific, it was occupied by the United States, it was peaceful, and it wasn't given a whole lot of choice about the contents of it's constitution.

[Taken from http://daedalnexus.net/blogs/comments.php?id=383_0_1_0_C]

Not such an easy task.

[ml/nj]

Kiss the 2nd Amendment good bye if you do this.

Amen!

A new convention would not be attended by Ben Franklin and James Madison. Their replacements would be Al Sharpton and Diane Feinstein. And while the Constitution really isn't observed anymore, at least everyone has to pay homage to it.

ML/NJ

[HAL9000]

Howard Jarvis was right.

[ml/nj]

Live by it or get out!

I'm curious.

What two or three provisions of the Constitution do you think we still live by?

ML/NJ

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

It put some light as to why it is hard to get anything done!

Because that is the way it was built. And it was built that way for a number of good reasons.

[Publius]

"A Convention for Proposing Amendments...as Part of This Constitution"

[Busywhiskers]

Convention not needed. What we need is guys in the Congress and the Courts who can read the one we already have.

[GSlob]

Well, if we could somehow staff that Convention with the likes of Jefferson and Madison, then not many people would object, I suppose. But as the things stand now, we'd get an approximation of the present Congress in the hypothetical Convention, with the likes of hillary and kerry in attendance. And to this many people WOULD object.

[IslandJeff]

Ping and bookmark

[DTogo]

We need another revolution, throw all the rascals out of D.C. so we can rediscover the Constitution!

[Sen Jack S. Fogbound]

What about the Term Limits for the Congresscritters? What about the "Professional Congressmen(women)" who has been there for 20, 30, 40 or forever?

Point is to put power BACK to the States and the people! Do we have it today?

I'm not talking about any major changes but some minor changes (congress may not consider it minor! LOL)

Of course it is hard to change. It is built that way. But are we really living with it all the way today?

[billbears]

Hey works for me. Republicans and Democrats would be out of their jobs tomorrow. Neither party honors or respects the Constitution.

[mrsmith]

"in 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, but only after supporters of the amendment were just one state short of triggering a constitutional convention. "

I didn't realize that stupid amendment- so harmful to the states and to the structure of the Constitution- had that much support in the states!

[hosepipe]

[ We need another revolution, throw all the rascals out of D.C. so we can rediscover the Constitution! ]

Exactly.. thats why we HAVE the 2nd amendment.. Would be bloody and probably would turn into the mother of all riots.. or MAYBE NOT..

[TASMANIANRED]

Idea is about as dangerous as a kid with a gun.

It is hard to amend the constitution for a reason.