Should there be mandatory constitutional conventions?

Thomas Jefferson, when the constitution was being written, madea suggestion. He suggested that every 19 years a new constitutional convention be held so that the document could always be kept up to date when the current needs of the country and people. The others in congress didn't like this idea.

But I think he had the right idea. Over the years, many changes to culture, technoogy, etc have changed our country drastically, but we are forced to wait until congress feels the need to actually support amendments before we can make changes to reflect those we have seen.

I think that we should consider establishing regular, mandatory constitutional conventions. No changes would be required, but the chance to suggest and debate possible amendment,or even the possibility of a page one rewrite of the entire document, should be allowed.

I think the convention should follow the same rules as congress, with each state sending a delegation based on their population.

 

Sure. Why not?

Though, it should go without saying that if the mob decides to use the constitution to undermine individual rights, its only going to serve to alienate individualists from respecting it and abiding by it.

 

I would be more worried about the destruction of minority rights. I mean, it was only in the last 10 years that gay marriage became supported by the majority of Americans. If we had constitutional conventions back in the 50's, gays would basically have no rights at all.

 

Start the amendment process...

 

A regularly scheduled constitutional convention would most likely end up just like our current government is, captured by special interests.

Sounds like a bad idea, although I'm sure the Tides Foundation and the US Chamber of Commerce would love it.

 

To what purpose?

 

There is already a movement preparing for exactly this. They already have the rules in place and have quite a few states signed on.

www.conventionofstates.com

 

Either you don't understand the Convention of States movement or you don't understand the OP, because they're lightyears away from each other.

 

Each state should have a delegation equal to the population they represent.

Just like they do in congress and in the Electoral College.

 

The convention of states movement is calling for a one time convention. States calling for a convention is one way a convention can be called. 2/3 of states have to sign on.

I am calling for mandatory conventions held at regular intervals.

 

How so?

 

You already said that. I'm asking what the purpose is.

 

The delegates have the right to introduce and vote on amendment. That's how constitutional convention works. A amendment would pass by 2/3 vote and then be sent to the state legislatures for ratification.

 

Hard to imagine that 34 States would sign on, given the fact that Republicans control so may state legislatures.

 

Actually the GOP typically supports having a convention. They want to pass several amendments.

 

The GOP would never want to open a can of worms that could lead to the abolishment of the Electoral College.

 

It is hard to see why. What changes in culture or technology affect what the federal government is allowed to do, or how congress, the supreme court, and the president are chosen, or the freedom of the press and the right to assemble, or the freedom from unreasonable searches, or the requirements for being guilty of treason, etc, etc, etc?

 

I disagree. 19 years isn't long enough to see if something is working. I'm glad the rest in Congress disagreed. I don't trust today's politicians with the task of changing the Constitution with a convention.

 

Why not? Whenever a democrats win the presidency, they call for the EC to be abolished. They did it in 2008 and in 2012, and in 2016, before they realized that the Trump was gonna win, they were claiming that the EC was rigged for Clinton, and that she had secretly bribed all of the delegates (and yes this was a GOP talking point during the election)

They only support the EC when they win, and they oppose it when they lose. The dems are the same way. Both sides are like that.

 

I'm not saying you're fibbing, but I honestly don't recall any sort of GOP push to eliminate the electoral college. Who was doing that?

 

It was mostly a Trumper thing, but the GOB said nothing against it. Trump went on hour-long rants at allies about how the EC was corrupt and how Cliton had rigged the election by bribing them. He said the same thing during interviews.

 

No, we already have means set up for this.

If 2/3's of the States want a convention, then we have a convention.

All you are doing is trying to change the laws to get what you want, it's basically the same thing as stacking the court.

We have things set up on purpose to balance out "population" with "states rights". It's pretty comical that the only people who want to change the rules are the ones who want to eliminate more of the "states rights" side of things.

 

So when you said, "they did it in 2008 and in 2012, and in 2016" you weren't referring to anyone in the GOP, just Donald Trump specifically?

That's quite a difference from claiming, "Why not? Whenever a democrats win the presidency, they call for the EC to be abolished." Sounds like that never happened.

 

Fake News

 

OP is trying to push the Fake News in order to act "moderate" and say his position is not radical in any way. I am sure he/she will dig up some fake news story about how some anonymous source said they wanted to do some barely mentioned idea.

Republicans have faaaar and away been against any change in the EC

It is not .... just like he/she is not a moderate