Dumbing down of America or showing sensitivity?

Please,correct me if I am wrong....

Isn't the whole Constitution up for change at a constitutional convention?
(all articles and amendments,including The Bill of Rights) Originally Posted by RichardGozenya

Yes, that is a possible risk. However ....

The majority of opinion is that Congress could NOT control what can be brought up at a constitutional convention. There is debate over whether the states can restrict it when they make they request for one. So if 2/3 of the states requested a constitutional convention specifically to discuss

1. legalizing marijuana
2. decriminalizing prostitution

they might be able to limit the discussion just to those amendments (the theory is completely untested of course).

Finally, any amendment would still need 3/4 of the states to pass which is a pretty high bar in any case.

Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Finally, any amendment would still need 3/4 of the states to pass which is a pretty high bar in any case. Originally Posted by discreetgent

But that can be done right at the Convention.

(the theory is completely untested of course). Originally Posted by discreetgent

The Annapolis Convention, 1786, is an example of a convention that went astray.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Convention_%281786%2 9

But that can be done right at the Convention. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Right. My point is that needing 3/4 to ratify an amendment is likely to prevent anything truly lunatic from passing. However, Congress has never wished to risk it and in part it finally moved on the 17th amendment when more and more states began to send in requests for a constitutional convention to amend senator elections to popular vote.

The Annapolis Convention, 1786, is an example of a convention that went astray.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapolis_Convention_%281786%2 9 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Didn't it just lead to the Philadelphia convention in 1787?

Thread drift from Twain to Healthcare.

Didn't it just lead to the Philadelphia convention in 1787? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Yes it did. Yet it was a big issue at the time. These men were assembled to discuss issues pertaining to interstate trade, but seizing the moment, they reconvened and rewrote the Constitution. That's what I meant by saying they "went astray."

Probably a good thing it did; somehow I doubt the US would have remained a country without it - and yes I know all about the Civil War or if you prefer (for you RK) The War Between the States or (for you PJ) The War of Northern Aggression.

Please,correct me if I am wrong....

Isn't the whole Constitution up for change at a constitutional convention?
(all articles and amendments,including The Bill of Rights) Originally Posted by RichardGozenya

You are correct but this is a Tea Party CC and they intend to amend the current Constitution back to the original Constitution.

You are correct but this is a Tea Party CC and they intend to amend the current Constitution back to the original Constitution.

Originally Posted by WTF

That was funny!!!

Ah,yes...Intent

I just hope it does not go askew,such as....

The Texas House 100+ Republicans/50? Democrats .... and the Democrats
get to name the Speaker

Hopefully,the same "rule makers" are not in charge of the CC's rules :>)

Probably a good thing it did; somehow I doubt the US would have remained a country without it - and yes I know all about the Civil War or if you prefer (for you RK) The War Between the States or (for you PJ) The War of Northern Aggression. Originally Posted by discreetgent

You are correct but this is a Tea Party CC and they intend to amend the current Constitution back to the original Constitution.

Originally Posted by WTF

That was funny!!! Originally Posted by discreetgent

Actually, to the one under the First Continental Congress.

Right. My point is that needing 3/4 to ratify an amendment is likely to prevent anything truly lunatic from passing. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Giving the states the right to override Congress by a 2/rds vote doesn't seem lunatic to me.

However, Congress has never wished to risk it and in part it finally moved on the 17th amendment when more and more states began to send in requests for a constitutional convention to amend senator elections to popular vote.

And the same thing would happen here if there is enough push for a CC, Congress might pass a Repeal Amendment.

Thread drift from Twain to Healthcare. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Good call my jigaboo