- This topic has 6 voices and 49 replies.
-
Posts
-
A Harvard gentlemen wants to call a Constitutional Convention, presumably only for one purpose: to ensure federal elections aren't swayed by anything except the citizens of the democracy. Should this be done? Did the Framers miss something by not including it in the Constitution in the first place?
I recall that this subject was covered in great depth while I was in school. The mechanism is in place and I for one think we ought to hold such a Convention as it appears that our current system is broken beyondfixing. I also recall that the Professor warned that once you convene such a convention they are free toignore their instructions and construct any scheme they please much the same as happened in 1787 when the delegates came together to revise the Articles of Confederation. Look what happened there.If such a convention were held and I were a delegate, I would push for a whole new system akin to theBritish model where the leader of the party that won a general election became the first minister ofgovernment. This of course would require separate heads of State and Government as is the case in most system of this kind. This might frighten the voters--coalition is a big strange word.Myriad details would have to be worked out, but as we have a plethora of lawyers, it would provide temporary meaningful work. The chances of this convention ever being held are, in my opinion, zero.WillyD
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”–Jefferson.In a word, no. Otherwise it ends up (after years of argle-bargle) like the California Const., pages of pages... nothing that does anything but confuse. Before they set about to change anything they need to understand the document as written. To accomplish that; see quote above.
In a word, no. Otherwise it ends up (after years of argle-bargle) like the California Const., pages of pages... nothing that does anything but confuse. Before they set about to change anything they need to understand the document as written. To accomplish that; see quote above.
Yes, that is what I think. We should be thankful that the process for changing the Constitution is not easier than it is.
If such a convention were held and I were a delegate, I would push for a whole new system akin to theBritish model where the leader of the party that won a general election became the first minister ofgovernment.
Without knowing more about the system you are talking about, I must say that it sounds radical and would turn American political life on its head...which is why I would rather keep the status quo with its limitations. I am more afraid of someone gaming the system through a change to the Constitution than I would be interested in finding out about any improvements that it may introduce.
The system I am talking about is the one used in most democracies. Very few utilize a system like ours–we are not unique, but a rara avis.It works like this. The voters vote for a party or a man standing for election in a party. When the votes are counted up the head of State asks the party who has won a majority in an election to form a government to run the nation. If no single party has a majority it can form coalitions with minor parties so as to achieve that magical number of 51 percent. The winning party or parties then become the new government and get to work--BUT--there is a big plus in their system. If the government proposes aprogram or gets into a real problem with trying to govern--being inept for example--or is exposed as being corrupt--the whole legislature can force it to resign by bringing in a vote of "no confidence" whichin essence means the 51 percent majority has been lost. This leads the head of State to call for newelections hoping to find a new government that has the confidence of the people. In short, if thegovernment is not doing a credible job--throw them out without having to wait years to get rid of them.This system is not without flaws--what is--but it is an alternative to our system. Fear not--it will neverhappen the goddess of INERTIA and her companion handmaiden--DISINTEREST--almost guarantee thatno changes will be made.WillyD
Yes–this is often the critique–but it does not matter really. The State is looked after by the head of State. The professional bureaucrats know what to do on daily matters whilst awaiting the appointment of anew minister and life goes on.A friend described it this way. While the government is in power all the bureaucrats rush about like a herd of maddened bison and when the government falls they stop running, and get the work done on a morereasonable pace. When the new minister is in place they all begin running again-- illusion and feigned sincerity are all. The absence of a government for a short time means that all present laws are valid, but no new legislation can be passes--interesting concept--n'est pas?
No. If you open up the Constitution again, the states may cede more civil liberties to the Federal government.
willy,The other problem I have is the party leader that doesn't will his / her district. Special election in some other riding is called (where victory is assured) and the elected rep resigns so leader can win in return for a ministry of something position. Sorry if I want this I'll move to Canada... I like their beer and their style.
No. If you open up the Constitution again, the states may cede more civil liberties to the Federal government.
Yeah, that too. POWER TO THE SHEEPLE! 😉
Cede more liberties–yes they might–on the other hand they may regain them–it is risky businesswhich is why it will in all likelihood never happen. It would take a real crisis to get us to follow this path.Perhaps a fiscal breakdown would do it.
Yes–finding safe seats for the leaders is part of the system in other places, but that is easily fixed as we simply write the new law to mandate that people must reside in the state they represent. I do not drink Canadianbeer, but I am told it is excellent.WillyD
Cede more liberties--yes they might--on the other hand they may regain them--it is risky businesswhich is why it will in all likelihood never happen. It would take a real crisis to get us to follow this path.Perhaps a fiscal breakdown would do it.
The Constitution is not broke, so a crisis shouldn't be invoked to "fix it." We need to end the Federal Reserve system and cut the banking cartel out of the equation.
The Constitution is not broke, so a crisis shouldn't be invoked to "fix it.I respect you opinion with which I respectfully disagree. If I had a pitchfork and were young enough to wield it, I would be sharpening the tines.
The Constitution is not broke, so a crisis shouldn't be invoked to "fix it.I respect you opinion with which I respectfully disagree. If I had a pitchfork and were young enough to wield it, I would be sharpening the tines.
I can feel that, but you should be sharpening your tines to preserve the Constitution as it is, not to change it into something it should not be. Our government is what is broke. It can't keep its grubby fingers out of our pockets, and they are more concerned about non existent global warming and chasing boogie men around the globe than fixing the real problem which is a government bloated with inefficient bureaucracies, porous borders, and robber barons extorting us on Wall Street. Okay I'll stop there, my blood pressure is rising. LOL
I can feel that, but you should be sharpening your tines to preserve the Constitution as it is, not to change it into something it should not be. Our government is what is broke. It can't keep its grubby fingers out of our pockets, and they are more concerned about non existent global warming and chasing boogie men around the globe than fixing the real problem which is a government bloated with inefficient bureaucracies, porous borders, and robber barons extorting us on Wall Street. Okay I'll stop there, my blood pressure is rising. LOL...Donald BakerNow I have gone and upset you and I am sorry. The government is crippled because we are operatingunder a wonderful document written over 200 years ago, but not quite flexible enough to be applicable to our times.I think it has outlived its usefulness and a new Constitutional Convention could come up with something better. The founding fathers were not guided by the hand of a deity and there are major flaws inthe document that have to be constantly worked around in order to get things done. It is like an old Ford--it was great in its day, but it is time to turn it in for a new model. That is my opinion.As to your comments concerning the actions of our present government--well we can save that for another day--life is long, life is sweet. My keepers told me to adopt this view.WillyD
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
