Its sad/amusing to read the "let's enforce the Constitution we have" chorus. Its as if they are immune to the written and practical lessons of history. Read Livy, Machiavelli, Locke, Sidney, Cato, Jefferson, Madison, and our own Declaration of Independence. For those too lazy for study, we need look no further than our colonial and early experience under the Articles of Confederation to see what happens under unamendable governing forms.
I've read every post to this thread so far, and you'd think our Constitution was perfection on earth. Which Constitution? The 1787 Constitution, the Constitution after the Bill of Rights, the Constitution after the 13th-15th Amendments, or perhaps the 16-17th? Anyway there are twenty-seven amendments and I'm not sure which one the chorus thinks we should enforce. Oh, we should just enforce the latest? Okay. Since, by the chorus, it doesn't make a difference, let's start with repeal of 17th and see what happens.
Not even our Framers thought their Constitution was perfection. They said it wasn't. They included Article V so that self-governing people in a republic could keep their republic. Duh.
On this, of the DUTY of the sovereign people to correct errors and shortcomings as they become evident, the Framers spoke with one voice.
I realize that won't budge the chorus. Actually, they needn't worry. There are hundreds of Article V applications scattered through the national archives. Congress will never call a state-derived Article V convention. This should please the chorus until the moment the creaky gears of our once free government come to a grinding halt.
To call us all closed minded bigots immune to reason is a rhetorical fallacy when no one calling for a convention of the states has actually tried reason.
A reasonable [e.g. reasoned] argument would begin by proposing the text of an actual amendment, then citing the ills that it is aimed to address, examing how the amendment would work to address the ill and then anticipate and put to rest concerns about a host of unintended consequences that will arise from any effort to meddle with the constitution that exists.
I don't see that anywhere.
The abandonment of states rights to the federal government, except for the cited nullification of sanctuary cities, is not an ill of the constitution, but an ill of the states. And, there a plenty of remedies for fixing the sanctuary city problem, which is already an unconstitutional abrogation by the states of powers that the federal government has had from the outset and that it must have to defend the states (unless say Wyoming will maintain a militia to repel illegal invaders declared legal by the state of California). The fix isn't Wyoming but to fix California, which Trump is working on.
We are already on our way to fixing an overbearing federal government. We elected Trump and he has been hacking away unmercifully on the regulatory state. Didn't need and amendment, just an electorate and a President who were in agreement that that job needed to be done.
Now, the real problem is that those on the right don't like the folks that the country sends to Washington. You can't fix stupid with a constitutional amendment.
Just don't call us close minded bigots because we are immune to arguments that have never been posed to us.
A constitutional convention would be open to all political persuasions. History teaches us that almost nothing goes as planned or as expected. Even if all conservatives spoke with one voice, there’s no guaranree they would prevail.
Jacqueline, thank you for your very thoughtful post. Excuse my French, but the balanced budget amendment is just mental masturbation. Ok, if that’s what’s needed to make Article V non-radioactive. If we’re going to start limited, I’d certainly be game to start with the 17th amendment, though I think the need for that is tough to sell to the sheeple. FRiends, those who haven’t done so, check out Levin on the Article V process. A Convention of States can be limited in scope, the Legislatures can recall wayward delegates, and amendments still need to be ratified by38 states. Levin’s 11 proposals are good ones; that doesn’t mean there are not other good ones available. The left has triumphed on a hundred fronts over 100 years. Conservative inroads might turn back, what, 5, 10, 15 before the rats regain power and go pedal to the metal on more statism. It might not be doable, but I’ve become convinced that nothing but Convention of the States can effect the systemic overhaul that is needed.
The Constitution AS WRITTEN and RATIFIED and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and INTENDED.
THAT Constitution.
We don’t need another CoC. We need the states and their chicken-sh#t governors to get a mindset of INDEPENDENCE from the feds (remember, as in our founding Declaration) and stand against their mostly unconstitutional acts, laws, and decisions.
Our constitution may not be perfect but it far better than anything this generation of politicians could come up with. The naivete of some still astounds me.
I do not propose that our Constitution is “perfection”.
However, I recognize that if we open up the Constitution to a re-write, which is exactly what you do with a convention, we put our country and ourselves at grave risk. Perhaps you trust the people of this country but I do not. The margins of victory for the right are far too slim to risk allowing the left to get their hands on replacing the very foundation of our country.
And to what end? If we are going to ignore the one we have now, what the hell good will writing something different do?