And the chamber has room for only 427.
Doesn’t the UK still have some doctors in private practice?
Perhaps I misinterpreted the statement, “Health care shall be completely run by the government”; I interpret that as, “Private practice, where the patients can pay the doctors directly, will be illegal.”
“Paging Doctor Kulak”.
Canada has doctors in private practice too. I have seen no evidence nor heard no claims that the doctors in private practice are any better than the ones in public service. You can probably get served faster is the only advantage. And speaking to doctors who served both before and after medicare was introduced, they told me they were very happy to get out from under the whole business of billing and collecting from patients.
I suspect that if the government were to take over completely and ban private practice (most unlikely, but imagine it for the sake of argument), nearly all would grin and bear it.
Yeah I like these specific holiday ones to throw around
-
Saving Christmas Amendment - Everybody should be allowed Christmas as a paid day off unless it’s a critical job (police, infrastructure, transportation) and if so anyone working is entitled to double overtime pay.
-
Veterans and Memorial Day Recognition Amendment - Anyone who has served in the US military or recognized auxiliary service is required to be either given both days off or be given an additional two spare days off to be used at their discretion.
As an outsider, I have no dog in this fight, but I do note that no-one’s suggested mandating permanent non-partisan/professional commissions for the nomination of the judiciary, and for proposing boundaries for electoral districts/constituencies and other aspects of the administration of elections.
Yes, there doesn’t to be much emphasis on structural reforms of the legislative bodies and much needed modernization of our elections. I’ve made no secret here that I think our election and representation models are creaking badly, have been surpassed by systems developed elsewhere and are largely responsible for much of today’s polarization.
One thing I’d like to see is the congressional representation for each state tied to the number of people who actually voted in the last or last few elections. This would force states to make it easier, not harder for people to vote. Maybe allow them to count 3/5 of the non-voters.
This creates an incentive for states to make voting mandatory. I’m guessing that most of them would do it. I slightly lean towards this being a plus for your plan.
Your plan punishes states where a high proportion of the population that cannot vote due to either being non-citizen immigrants or children. As a pro-natalist advocate of more legal immigration, I would have to vote no on this in the convention.
I have posted for this before, suggesting ways to try it even without a constitution change. The problem is that no one trusts the other side to abide by the system rule when in power. So putting it in the constitution would be good.
One issue with a lot of these things is the one of our big political parties, the GOP, has more distrust of experts than the other. So when you suggest putting representatives of civil society organizations on the commissions, such as the American Bar Association, or American Management Association, Republicans tend to jump to the conclusion that this must be a plan to favor the Democrats.
In an overly partisan situation, how do you find genuinely non-partisan people to be on those commissions? And how do you confirm that they are non-partisan?
– in a less-partisan situation, that would be easier. But in a less-partisan situation, it would also matter less.
Coming from a set-up where party affiliation requires some significant contribution in money and/or time/activity, rather than just registration, I wouldn’t find partisanship hard to identify. In any case the relevant commissions here are set up to try to ensure broad and fair representation of different expertises, which would also work to dilute any partisan skewing of decisions. As would the fact that appointments/nominations come from the commissions acting independently, through fairly transparent procedures.
Though I can see that if there’s little or no common ground or reciprocal respect between parties in the highest authorities in the land, any such system could be manipulated by a government with sufficient nerve and power.
Bumped.
An Ohio update: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/05/21/rewriting-america-the-constitution-under-siege/
A Constitutional Convention effectively would suddenly revive the individual states as the true sovereigns of the country, with the Federal government being more akin to the United Nations. This is so counter to the political trends since the beginning of the 20th century that I can’t see it happening; it would be akin to King Charles III suddenly regaining true personal rule over the United Kingdom.
Even if it did happen, I doubt there are any amendments it could come up with that could gather the support of 38 states. Certainly, anything from Project 2025 would be doomed from the start, assuming they could even get 34 states to agree to call for a convention in the first place - and even if they did (for example, because there would be states that would want to enshrine rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, and/or gender identity protection), the convention would have problems of its own, as the article suggests; to start, who would run it?
Any such Con would be run by the MAGAs, but yeah, the states would not support their garbage.
Also remember that this wouldn’t be merely proposing amendments; it could in principle be scrapping the federal constitution and starting over again.
I don’t think it would have that authority. Then again, there isn’t too much difference between “scrapping the Constitution” and “having one large amendment that pretty much replaces the whole thing,” now is there? Technically, the only thing that would have to remain is the provision that every state has the right to as many Senators as every other state; remember, giving every state an equal say is the sole reason the Senate exists in the first place - search “Connecticut Compromise.”
Replace everything up to the Bill of Rights with a parliamentary system.
Split the First Amendment into two: 1) Freedom of speech, press, assembly, with the exceptions (fightin’ words, CSAM, words intended to cause harm or panic (like shouting Fire! in a crowded theater)) written out. 2) Freedom of religion and freedom from it, with specificity: “No public monies, whether raised through taxes, tariffs, fees, or any other means, shall be used to establish, fund, continue, or propagate any religious dogma, doctrine, or belief system; nor shall such funds be used to prosyletize…” etc.
The Second Amendment (now the Third) rewritten to allow common sense gun regulation (however that works out by the attendees of the convention).
The actual Fourth and Fifth Amendments are pretty good as they are, leave 'em.
The Sixth Amendment should specify what “speedy trial” actually means. Ditto “Cruel and Unusual Punishment.” It should mandate humane prisons and forbid the death penalty.
The Seventh should be something to the effect of “we adhere to the United Nations Declaration of Rights in all cases where this document fails to identify, protect, etc. any other right…”
I can see it now: “I demand the right that my children be taught an education where this ‘evolution’ nonsense is ignored, and ‘creationism’ be taught as fact, in accordance with Article 26.3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Article 26.3: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”