DescentBB

Latest from Abbott in Texas is the suggestion, which has been growing in popularity on the far right, that we should have a Constitutional Convention and rewrite the Constitution. I suppose this is another desperate outgrowth of them seeing the handwriting on the wall as the nation gradually swings back to the left side of the spectrum after 35 years of moving right. The thinking is that they have some sort of narrow window to pass this massive overhaul at a convention and then get it ratified while they still control a majority of State Legislatures. I don't really see that long of a window, and the process would seem to me to be slower than they imagine.
Still, the idea brings up a few questions: First, how would you all feel about such a Convention?
Second, do you think we SHOULD re-write the constitution to give States far more power, and gut the Federal authority?
Finally, do you think such a Convention would even produce a conservative change? From what I read, there are some left-leaning lawyer types out there licking their chops at such a Convention, viewing it as the ideal time to push three amendments the left would hold dear---one overturning Citizens United, one defining the way Congressional districts are drawn and finally, one to either repeal or clarify the definitions of the 2nd Amendment.


overall thoughts?

Not going to happen…

But you better check which party holds a great deal of local offices before jumping to conclusions.

But in the end one thought does come to mind…”be careful of what you wish for”.

Spidey wrote:Not going to happen…

But you better check which party holds a great deal of local offices before jumping to conclusions.

I think I mentioned above that much of the impetus on the right is because they currently control more statehouses than they will likely hold in a decade, so the urgency is for right now.

But in the end one thought does come to mind…”be careful of what you wish for”.

valid cautionary before anyone opens that particular can of worms

I'd like to know what their justification is for wanting to change it. It seems to be they just need to start holding people's feet to the fire when they aren't legislating according to the constitution. There's plenty of work to be done in that vein. I saw the first half of the smooth sales pitch that Obama did on gun control recently, and I realize how many people are in support of him... you don't want these intellectually shallow people or their time clocking, self-interested, incompetent representatives getting their hands on the constitution of the United States. Right now the constitution is one of the only anchors to sanity the good people in this country have left, and it seems to me they would put their pen to it for convenience sake (if they're not just traitors to their own cause), instead of tackling the impossibly difficult job that is right in front of them.

I am very much against the idea of allowing any politicians the ability to put a pen to the constitution in the present or foreseeable political climate.

Krom wrote:I am very much against the idea of allowing any politicians the ability to put a pen to the constitution in the present or foreseeable political climate.

Pretty much this. If we can somehow purge the current Legislative branch I would give it a second thought, but not until then. Conceptually I'm in favor of rewrites.

vision wrote:

Krom wrote:I am very much against the idea of allowing any politicians the ability to put a pen to the constitution in the present or foreseeable political climate.

Pretty much this. If we can somehow purge the current Legislative branch I would give it a second thought, but not until then. Conceptually I'm in favor of rewrites.

It is the current Executive Branch of the United States that needs to be purged. It is the entire reason Abbott brought up the idea in the first place.

We have an imperial president.

Nightshade wrote:It is the current Executive Branch of the United States that needs to be purged. It is the entire reason Abbott brought up the idea in the first place.

We have an imperial president.

any of you all old enough to remember the same said of Nixon? Just because you have a do-nothing Congress tied in knots by no-nothing loons from the Tea Party doesn't mean you rewrite the Constitution.

So do I hear a need for term limiting members of congress?

woodchip wrote:So do I hear a need for term limiting members of congress?

not from me. I've never seen where that shouldn't be decided by the electorate in the district. If you redraw the districts to reflect reality, and not some bargains to ensure 'safe' districts, you address any problems I have. Frankly, we've had some long-term Congresspeople and Senators who have been of great service to the naton, and whose long time legislative experience has served us all well. Term limits are no solution unless you have a huge pool of competent, honest people to take the job. I could even see the argument made that finite terms lead to abuse because the threat of public outcry in the re-election campaign wouldn't uncover deceit.