A modern Constitutional Convention would almost certainly enshrine the modern notion of rights as including what used to be called “entitlements”: you have a “right” to food, housing, education, medical care, etc.
If the original Constitution had specified what “cruel and unusual punishment” means, we’d still have flogging, and the death penalty would probably be constitutionally protected.
A modern convention run by the people currently running the USA?
The death penalty wasn’t ever found unconstitutional per se, only that in the 1960s the procedure for determining who it was applied to was found unconstitutionally arbitrary and biased.
Legal experts chime in but I always presumed that cruel meant degrading, debasing, humiliating; and that unusual meant not as specified by law, made up ad hoc.
Becuase Boris Johnson and Netanyahu have proved it works so well.
The UN general assembly is controlled by nations with little or no human rights.
In 1972, actually: Furman v. Georgia - Wikipedia
ELI5: it feels wrong to me that the Founding Fathers would set up a system whereby it would be possible to completely rewrite the entire Constitution, no matter how difficult it would be. Am I missing something? Is there a logic to it, or a change since then, that I’m missing?
They fully expected it to happen on a regular basis, as I understand it. The change is the modern concept of the Constitution as some ideal that should never be replaced.
Anti-parliament folks who cite Israel as an argument are hoping that we will ignore all of the modern democracies where parliaments ARE successful. Don’t let Israel’s systemic shortcomings prevent you from understanding what scholars of democracies understand – that multi-party systems without a powerful head of state can and often do work quite well.
A convention should kill the fucking Senate, one of the least representative bodies in modern global democracy.
The small states at the time saw this coming. That is why, as I pointed out above, having a Senate where every state has the same number of Senators is the only thing in the Constitution that cannot be changed.
It only seems wrong if you think of the federal government as more or less THE government of our country, with the state governments being something akin to provinces or districts. That’s 180° reversed from the situation in the 1780s when the states were nearly sovereign and the federal government was closer to something like the United Nations. Of course the all-but-sovereign states would retain the option of deciding the whole edifice needed replacing.
If instead of unilaterally seceding the southern states in 1860 had demanded and gotten a constitutional convention, the federal government as it existed at the time might well have been disbanded or replaced.
You might have ended up with something like the EU.
That was more or less the Articles of Confederation. By 1787 the Founders had decided that they needed something a little more unified than that, but still with sharp limits; and of course the experiment was new enough that they hedged their bets over trying something else. It also explains why formal amendment was made so difficult: the federal government had whatever powers it did due to the Constitution, and the delegates did not want it to be easy to formally add to those powers.
True, but easily (well, as “easily” as Constitutional amendments generally) worked around – the Senate cannot be abolished by Constitutional amendment, but a Constitutional amendment could have the same practical effect by trimming the Senate’s powers down to “select one commemorative stamp to be issued each month” or some such.
There’s something I see every so often on the internet called "convention of states " that calls for such a convention, but it seems very right wing because after anything regarding gun control or one of their pet concerns you’d get "its time for the convention, ect "
Here’s their website
This will not happen, because the petition says the proposed convention would be “restricted to proposing amendments that will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its power and jurisdiction, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress,” but a Constitutional Convention cannot have restrictions on what can or cannot be proposed at it.
A Constitutional Convention is exactly the right way to address the serious systemic shortcomings of our current democracy.
But we won’t get that. Participating conservatives want to use it to cram what should be policy decisions into a new constitution and even our friends on the blue side are ambiguous at best about systemic repair.
I think I’m doomed to spending my remaining years as one of the handful of nerds howling for better democracy before our existing one shatters completely.
The arguments over just the 2nd ad would be long and unable to compromise. Same as the Electoral college. See it takes 34 states. How many states are small enough that they would lose power? At least 30.
Nothing serious could be agreed upon unless the convention is taken over by a faction- in which case the results wont get ratified.
Interesting. I’d have thought they’d be the most likely to object to what they’d consider “woke” policy commitments in defining systems and structures.
What might be some examples of woke policies in a new constitution that conservatives might object to?
I’m sure liberals would support the right to healthcare, public education, a living wage, ERA, collective bargaining, environmental justice and LGBTQI rights including same-sex marriage being written into Constitution 2.0.
I’m sure not holding my breath for a new convention to give it to them, though.