“I believe the virtue of calling a constitutional convention (where the delegates are chosen in "money-free" elections) is that, the moment such a convention convenes, our wealthy ten percent will have lost control of our country and we ordinary 10 percent will have regained it.”
“Mr. Gerard comments on the prosperous decades following World War II and the high taxes on the rich during those decades. I would like to add that those decades also saw the heyday of the US labor movement. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1927 signaled the end of that heyday. Strong unions during those times helped make it possible to tax the rich. They were also a check on any widening of our income gap. Now, as Gerard points out, we have the widest gap of all the world’s developed nations. It is worth noting that we also have the weakest unions in the developed world and that weak unions are associated with weak economies (See A Jeffersonian Approach to Reversing America’s Decline, Chap. 7) One thing we can do to help reduce our income gap (and help improve our long-term economy) is to repeal Taft-Hartley..”
“The problem isn’t with our elected officials. The problem is with our political system. Throwing one set of rascals out simply results in voting another set of rascals in. Our
Article I election system is driven by contributions from corporations, wealthy Americans and special interest groups. Until private money is taken out of our federal elections, organizing to vote will not make out civil officers any more representative of ordinary Americans. For example, our Congress is made up wealthy people (47% millionaires) put in office by the campaign contributions of other wealthy people. We are “represented” by people with whom we have little in common (funded by others with whom we have less in common). Yes, we need to organize. But we need to organize to reform our Article I elective system (and other aspects of our federal government) - not to cast votes that can only lead to further misrepresentation in Congress. We need to organize to bring about a 2nd constitutional convention aimed at reforming our federal government. See governmentreform.org”
lrobb on May 12, 2013 at 19:05:58
“The problem with calling a Constitutional Convention is that the minute it convenes you have lost control of what it can consider.
I would love to see such a convention called. We could peacefully divide the US into ideologically like-minded regions for purposes of everything except defense, foreign relations and a few treasury functions.
Then we wouldn't have to worry about what those who profoundly disagree with our region's culture and values might do to us in Washington.”
“Swatcapt's reply implies that what is now written in the Constitution should not be altered. We should certainly be careful to abide by our Constitution unless and until it is altered. However, we should also to take the trouble to alter those provisions that most need altering. Disproportionate representation in the Sentate, as it happens, is no doubt low on mny people's list of provisions that need altering. To contribute to discussions of provisions higher on many lists, see governmentreform.org'”
“You have a good point kwco. I'd be interested in hearing your ideas on how the Constitution might be altered to prevent the Senate from being dominated by either a minority of states or a minority of people. See governmentreform.org for ddiscussions of how we might alter the Constitution should the state legislatures apply for a 2nd constitutional convention.”
kwco on Apr 27, 2013 at 10:14:44
“Why prevent it? What's the difference between majority rule and mob rule? Most often there isn't one. Having lived in a majority rule countr with a unicameral parliament I can assure you the system you have in the US is better.
The last thing you need is to be living in an overbearing Nanny state with a govt that has it's tentacles in every aspect of your life. I moved to the US for a lot of very good reasons.”
“Judge Sarokin makes a strong case against the use of the Miranda exception min the Boston case. The purpose of Miranda is to protect us from our government. The Miranda exception places the places the power to decide whethher or not it applies in the hands of the government. This weakening its ability to protect us. Our continuing "war against terrorism" is placing many of our protections in jeopardy. We should keep in mind the words of Justice Davis in Ex Parte Milligan (1866). He wrote "No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was vever invented bby the wit of man than that any of it's (the Constitution's) provisions can be suspendedduring any of the great exigencies of government." See governmentreform.org”
“It is true that we are a republic (that is, a representative democracy). However, this in no way justifies the over representation of people living in our smaller states. This over representation is a constitutional flaw accepted by the framers out of expediency. It was necessary to gain the approval of the smaller states for the Constitution as a whole. The over riding need in 1787 was to get a constitution approved – however flawed. The framers feared that, should they fail to do so, the country would fall into anarchy. This fear is expressed explicitly in both Madison’s notes on the debates and in the federalist papers. For example, Hamilton warned, in federalist 85, against placing the country in jeopardy by the “chimerical pursuit of a perfect plan.” Jefferson, Hamilton and others believed that future generations should be responsible for altering the Constitution to deal with both original flaws and changing circumstances. We should carry out this responsibility now by petitioning our state legislatures to apply for a 2nd constitutional convention. See governmentreform.org”
swatcapt on Apr 28, 2013 at 11:03:54
“"However, this in no way justifies the over representation of people living in our smaller states. This over representation is a constitutional flaw accepted by the framers out of expediency"
Really last time i check we have 2 houses. In one all states are represented equal, then the other is unequal and is base on population”
kwco on Apr 26, 2013 at 16:48:32
“"It was necessary to gain the approval of the smaller states for the Constitution as a whole"
That's because the United States is just that - a collection of separate states. What would be the point of even being a state in the Union if you got no say at all and every last decision was dictated by California and New York? Why not just call it the United States of California and New York? Why bother with the America part?”