Constitutional Convention - what should be proposed?

[Northern_Piper]

@Smapti

Hmm. There has to be some way to let members vote their conscience without being threatened or punished for it.

I would take a different approach to the issue. Have a system which ensures strong party discipline, coupled with the ability to switch parties, or easily start a new one.

With strong party discipline, the party as a whole decides on what they want to push for, electorally and in the legislature. People choose the party that they want to support because of that discipline, and know that all elected members will work to achieve that, if possible.

The other part is to make it easy to establish new parties, if the current ones don’t match what some people want.

For example, in the Canadian federal Parliament, there are currently 5 parties represented. The oldest of those, the Liberals, is younger than either the Republicans or Democrates in the US; dates back roughly to Confederation in 1867.

The next oldest is the New Democrats, founded in the mid-1960s; then the Greens, founded in 1983; the Bloc quebecois, founded in 1990; and the Conservative Party, founded in the early 2000s.

Notably, both the Bloc and the Conservatives resulted from the disintegration of the Progressive Conservatives; new parties quickly formed, to take a different approach than the old PC party. The Liberals also inherited a few from the new Conservative party.

That kind of shake-up in party structure makes it easy for members to switch parties, and for voters to switch allegiance. The members will vote the party whip, because they have joined the party because of the party platform (which they have a role in making), not because they’re being forced to vote against their consciences.

[Saint_Cad]

@That_Don_Guy

Did they even have districts back in 1787? Nothing in the Constitution requires them.

They were required starting in 1842, But I think my point still holds.

[Northern_Piper]

Yes, the states, the laboratories of democracy, are not allowed to experiment with multi-member districts and PR.

[Saint_Cad]

@thorny_locust

I don’t think that either cities or rural areas are as interchangeable, or as individually character-less, as you appear to think.

I said it was a simplistic example. The thought exercise is maybe there is a way to look at people’s political needs other than congressional districts.

[TriPolar]

You are correct, nobody in practice has that right now. That’s why we’re rewriting the document.

[Lumpy]

@TruCelt

@Lumpy

I.E., should the court be in the business of creating equity rather than equality?

What a good excuse to avoid making sure women are protected by the Bill of Rights. Thanks for that

We’re currently without an Equal Rights Amendment, yet somehow we don’t live in the Republic of Gilead. And what I asked is a legitimate question; especially in light of the fact that when the ERA was first put up for ratification a huge amount of opposition to it was precisely because of the perception that we’d be buying a pig in a poke: an amendment which an activist court could read to justify damn near anything.

[DrDeth]

@thorny_locust

If you came here at age 8? If you’re 83 and ill?

Every year you were required to, of course. Dont be pedantic.

@thorny_locust

I never got to vote for Shirley Chisholm.

Sure you could. There’s a line for write in candidates.

[glowacks]

I’m not reading the whole thread right how as I don’t have time, but one significant change I’d like to see that I’ve not mentioned on this board yet:

The Senate has absolutely no say on revenue and appropriations bills. Those only need the support of the House. They are too important, and the Senate not sufficiently representative of the people, to have the Senate bog down their passage. Any bill other than those, the Senate can only force the House to reconsider until after the next election of the House, but a bill passed identically by two different Houses can get sent to the President without Senate approval. The Senate would retain all its other advisory powers. If it did not conduct an up or down vote on a candidate for an office they are required to approve in at least 3 months, the candidate would be automatically confirmed. Essentially, they don’t confirm, but can veto candidates. And with all these nerfs to their powers, I don’t think people would mind too much if they went back to being chosen by state legislatures.

[TruCelt]

@Lumpy

We’re currently without an Equal Rights Amendment, yet somehow we don’t live in the Republic of Gilead.

On the contrary, quite a few states are moving very smartly in exactly that direction. 10 year olds have been forced to carry the babies of their rapists. Women have been sent to prison for having miscarriages. Do you even read the newspapers? Legislatures are limiting the availability of divorce even as they insist upon marriage ages as low as 12 years.

We. Need. The. E.R.A.

[TruCelt]

@Lumpy

And what I asked is a legitimate question; especially in light of the fact that when the ERA was first put up for ratification a huge amount of opposition to it was precisely because of the perception that we’d be buying a pig in a poke: an amendment which an activist court could read to justify damn near anything.

Why is it that you don’t fear men being awarded full civil rights under the Constitution, but you do fear those same rights being awarded to women? To LGBTQ folk?

[Smapti]

I don’t see how the ERA would necessarily fix those problems - it could, and almost certainly would, be argued that women have exactly as much right to an abortion (I.e. none) and to get married at age 12 as men do.

An amendment specifically addressing abortion and marriage/divorce rights would do more good than a broad platitude about equality.

[TruCelt]

It is not a broad platitude to be assured the same rights as the other 50% of humanity in a country where one of the two major political parties has been conducting a war on those rights.

Is it really possible that males simply do not notice what is happening? If several US states suddenly started legislating your testicles, would you not want a written assurance of your human rights under the Constitution?

If your 12 year old son was raped by a woman, then informed that he’d have to pay her child support for the next 18 years, would you be smiling through that?

[Smapti]

@TruCelt

Is it really possible that males simply do not notice what is happening? If several US states suddenly started legislating your testicles, would you not want a written assurance of your human rights under the Constitution?

If your 12 year old son was raped by a woman, then informed that he’d have to pay her child support for the next 18 years, would you be smiling through that?

I’m not smiling. I’m saying that tacking “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex” onto the Constitution is insufficient to remedy the wrongs you’ve identified.

[TruCelt]

@TruCelt

Amendment TC01: E. R. f’ing A. And let’s add in LGBTQ folks while we’re at it. And bodily autonomy.

Bolding added for your edification.

@Smapti

I’m saying that tacking “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex” onto the Constitution is insufficient to remedy the wrongs you’ve identified.

[thorny_locust]

@That_Don_Guy

@thorny_locust

@Sooner

Allow cross party voting in primaries - I believe this would reduce extremist candidates

Some states already do this. I’m curious about whether it works that way.

The Republicans do not allow cross-party voting in Presidential primaries. This was brought up when California first started its “open primary” system in 2000; the Republicans pointed to a clause in its rules that says that a primary can’t be used to award delegates if non-Republicans could vote in it, but the party reached a compromise with the state; there were two vote counts announced - one for all voters (a “straw poll,” for all intents and purposes), and one for registered Republicans that was used to award the delegates.

Ah. Thanks for info.

But the question remains: does the technique reduce extremist candidates in non-Presidential races?

@DrDeth

Sure you could. There’s a line for write in candidates.

True. And you could write in somebody who’s already served two terms as President. They’d have the same chance of actually being seated as Chisholm would have if I’d written her in.

@glowacks

The Senate would retain all its other advisory powers. If it did not conduct an up or down vote on a candidate for an office they are required to approve in at least 3 months, the candidate would be automatically confirmed.

That part I think is a good idea. But if we’re going to have a Senate, I want it and the House to have to come to agreement on legislation. And I don’t want Senators chosen by the legislature.

@TruCelt

We. Need. The. E.R.A.

Agreeing with that.

@Smapti

I’m saying that tacking “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex” onto the Constitution is insufficient to remedy the wrongs you’ve identified.

True. But it’s a really good idea anyway.

What evil, precisely, do you think would come of “equality of rights under the law”? What “rights under the law” do you want to be able to deny on account of sex or gender?

(I wonder whether we now want to substitute “gender” for “sex” in the ERA.)

[Smapti]

@thorny_locust

What evil, precisely, do you think would come of “equality of rights under the law”? What “rights under the law” do you want to be able to deny on account of sex or gender?

None and none. I just don’t think that the ERA, as written, is sufficient to address the problem, and that the current crop of legislation aimed at curtailing women’s rights would not be halted by it.

[Crafter_Man]

A rewrite of Amendment II. Something along the lines of,

Neither Congress, nor the President, nor any State shall deny, infringe, regulate, or tax the absolute right of the people, in both their individual and collective militia capacities, to own, carry, and use arms. Any congressional act, executive order, or State legislative act which would, under any guise or pretense, deny, infringe, regulate, or tax this cornerstone right is null and void at moment of passage, and may lawfully be, without risk of prosecution, ignored, or, if deemed necessary, forcibly resisted.

(Author: Kenneth Royce)

[TriPolar]

Why??

[Smapti]

I’ll see you that and raise you;

The right of adult citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms shall be respected, but Congress and the several states may by law provide for the licensing of individuals qualified to bear arms, and for the registration of arms and ammunition to their licensed owners, and for the safe storage and maintenance thereof, and may by law restrict or prohibit private ownership of arms of types designed and intended for military purposes as opposed to those designed and intended for lawful defense of one’s life, liberty, and property, or for sport or the hunting of game.

[TriPolar]

@thorny_locust

True. And you could write in somebody who’s already served two terms as President. They’d have the same chance of actually being seated as Chisholm would have if I’d written her in.

No. Someone who had already served to terms as president could not serve. Shirley Chisolm was elected to office and served. We certainly need presidential elections to be based on the popular vote.

As for the ERA, the new constitution will state that all rights apply equally to all US citizens. There would be no need for an amendment to specifically apply those rights to specific groups. It would actually be harmful because any group not mentioned would be assumed could have their rights abridged.