# States are starting to call for a Constitutional Convention **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2016, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243 "2016-02-05T16:48:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/21 "2016-02-05T21:24:53Z")
Absolutely nothing would come of a new CC. There’s no way even those clamoring for a CC could agree on a final draft, let alone get 3/4 of the states to go along. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/22 "2016-02-05T21:54:05Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Absolutely nothing would come of a new CC. There’s no way even those clamoring for a CC could agree on a final draft, let alone get 3/4 of the states to go along. Sure we could. We’d start with the easy stuff, like gun rights, and then breeze thru the rest! ---
**Author:** ![Maggie\_the\_Ocelot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@Maggie\_the\_Ocelot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maggie_the_Ocelot)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/23 "2016-02-05T22:24:28Z")
“I was chosen! for the constitutional convention!” - A. Ham ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/24 "2016-02-05T22:36:01Z")
Mostly seems a way for far-right loudmouths to push for their brand of change, believing the majority of the country secretly agrees with them when history is going the other direction. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/25 "2016-02-05T22:40:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Sure we could. We’d start with the easy stuff, like gun rights, and then breeze thru the rest! I like the cut of your jib! I am now a Believer. Constitutional Conventions for all! ---
**Author:** ![Horatio\_Hellpop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Horatio\_Hellpop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Horatio_Hellpop)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/26 "2016-02-06T00:54:59Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > A Constitutional Convention would mark the end of this country as we know it. Total chaos and anarchy would prevail. The only people who want one are total nutjobs. I don’t have any quotes handy, but I gather there was similar apprehension about the last one. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/27 "2016-02-06T01:11:43Z")
> [@Twoflower](#): > > Whatever amendments a convention came up with would still need to be approved by 3/4 of the state legislatures before they took effect. I can’t imagine anything too crazy passing that hurdle. > [@silenus](#): > > I don’t know. Have you _seen_ some of our state legislatures? 😃 > [@Drunky\_Smurf](#): > > No kidding. California is run by nutjobs. But if so, they’re a completely different **kind** of nutjobs than the red-state nutjobs. No amendment is going to get to 3/4 without support in both red states and blue, therefore no controversial amendments will pass, therefore what’s the point of a CC? ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/28 "2016-02-06T01:36:38Z")
WILL YOU PEOPLE CUT IT OUT ABOUT THE 3/4 RULE??? **Once again, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the 3/4 rule would survive a CC!!!** I will say this as plainly as I know how. Whatever came out of a CC would have its own rules about adoption and how it would go into effect. To go bathering on aimlessly about the 3/4 rule as if it were a scientific law is incredibly stupid, ignorant, and naive; and it is diametrically opposed to the spirit of this board. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/29 "2016-02-06T01:40:02Z")
The 3/4 rule would be insisted upon by more than 1/4 of the states… If a major set of amendments was passed by a lesser majority, chaos could ensue, leading to a new Civil War. If the convention is called under the authority of the Constitution, it is bound by the rules of the Constitution. The 3/4 rule will still apply. It’s still our greatest safeguard. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/30 "2016-02-06T01:44:56Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > I don’t have any quotes handy, but I gather there was similar apprehension about the last one. And look what happened. I stand by my hyperbole! 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/31 "2016-02-06T02:03:43Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The 3/4 rule would be insisted upon by more than 1/4 of the states… If a major set of amendments was passed by a lesser majority, chaos could ensue, leading to a new Civil War. Nah, not a Civil War. It’d be a parting of the ways. Then we can see how Mississippi and Alabama like living without blue-state subsidy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/32 "2016-02-06T02:25:31Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The 3/4 rule would be insisted upon by more than 1/4 of the states… If a major set of amendments was passed by a lesser majority, chaos could ensue, leading to a new Civil War. > > If the convention is called under the authority of the Constitution, it is bound by the rules of the Constitution. > > The 3/4 rule will still apply. It’s still our greatest safeguard. This illustrates the mistaken belief that underlies many of the calls for a convention: the idea that we could write a new constitution but the old constitution would somehow also still be in effect. Once you start with a constitutional convention, anything is on the table. We could form a hereditary monarchy; we could abolish voting; we could re-establish slavery; we could outlaw Catholicism; we could prohibit the ownership of private property; we could make it a capital offense to make jokes about the government. This isn’t just writing some new amendments. It’s starting the country over again from scratch. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/33 "2016-02-06T02:30:38Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > WILL YOU PEOPLE CUT IT OUT ABOUT THE 3/4 RULE??? > > **Once again, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the 3/4 rule would survive a CC!!!** > > I will say this as plainly as I know how. > Whatever came out of a CC would have its own rules about adoption and how it would go into effect. To go bathering on aimlessly about the 3/4 rule as if it were a scientific law is incredibly stupid, ignorant, and naive; and it is diametrically opposed to the spirit of this board. Exactly. Saying the three quarters rule will somehow transcend a constitutional convention is nonsense. A constitutional convention could declare there are no more states. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/34 "2016-02-06T02:53:52Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > WILL YOU PEOPLE CUT IT OUT ABOUT THE 3/4 RULE??? > > **Once again, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that the 3/4 rule would survive a CC!!!** > > I will say this as plainly as I know how. > Whatever came out of a CC would have its own rules about adoption and how it would go into effect. To go bathering on aimlessly about the 3/4 rule as if it were a scientific law is incredibly stupid, ignorant, and naive; and it is diametrically opposed to the spirit of this board. Are you referencing a Constitution Convention held under the authority of the Articles of Confederation? If so then these Articles required 100% agreement of all the States, which we obtained to ratify our current Constitution. Our current Constitution only requires 3/4s the States to ratify a proposed amendment and 2/3s just to forward a proposal. Now if you’re referencing the Second Continental Congress, then of course they made up their own rules, what they were trying to do had never been done before. Plus what they did decide on was agreeable to all the States, all ratified the Articles of Confederation. If there’s some other Constitutional Convention that occurred that I’m not aware of, perhaps you could share the informing with us. As it stands right now, a proposed amendment becoming a part of the Constitution with less than 3/4s of the States is as likely as a bill failing to pass one of the houses of Congress becoming law. It’s not that it can’t happen, just it never has. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/35 "2016-02-06T03:08:09Z")
Who has the guns makes the rules. As Flyer says, if a group of people get together and declare a new constitutional convention, they’re under no obligation to respect the 3/4 rule. What I think Flyer is forgetting is that the current government, including current military, is also under no obligation to respect the mofos that declared a constitutional convention. UNLESS, that is, the CC folks decided that they wanted a seamless transition from the old system to the new system. If they wanted that, they might try to change to a new constitution using the rules of the old one, such as, wait for it, _the three-fourths rule_. If they just want to party, to create a new constitution, well heck, why wait for 26 states? Come over to my house, bring a case of beer, we’ll draft the hell out of a new constitution tonight! Who has the guns makes the rules. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/36 "2016-02-06T03:18:09Z")
That, plus even if 3/4 isn’t legally binding, that’s still about as big a supermajority as you’d need for the rest of the states not to say, “No, fuck you, you’re keeping the old constitution.” We’ve seen what happens when only about 44% of the states decide to write a new constitution, and it doesn’t go well for them. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/37 "2016-02-06T03:27:53Z")
While I am reluctant to hail our founding fathers as geniuses and to pine for the good old days…I shudder to think what kind of craptastic constitution our modern professional politicians and their associated special interest groups would come up with instead. Would probably make the National Enquirer look like The New England Journal of Medicine by comparision. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/38 "2016-02-06T03:33:59Z")
> [@Horatio\_Hellpop](#): > > I don’t have any quotes handy, but I gather there was similar apprehension about the last one. That one had Madison, Washington, and Franklin, among others. Few people thought them nutjobs (other than King George). > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This illustrates the mistaken belief that underlies many of the calls for a convention: the idea that we could write a new constitution but the old constitution would somehow also still be in effect. What process would replace the old one? You think they’d come out of the CC with tablets of stone and institute them? Just a few states would be enough? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Once you start with a constitutional convention, anything is on the table. We could form a hereditary monarchy; we could abolish voting; we could re-establish slavery; we could outlaw Catholicism; we could prohibit the ownership of private property; we could make it a capital offense to make jokes about the government. Sure, but it would still have to go through a vote first and states would have to ratify it. Enough states would have to ratify it to override the current constitution. That would take 3/4 of the states. The last time a group of states tried to institute their own constitution without using proper channels it didn’t go over so well. Any CC is going to have roughly the same effect as the OWS manifestos. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/39 "2016-02-06T03:37:02Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Would we invite the various Canadian Provinces again? There’s a lot to be said about having BC in the Union. Sure, why not? At the very least we could give them American Samoa as a thank you gift–they’ve been really nice to us, after all. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2016, 3:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243/40 "2016-02-06T03:38:19Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Not so. Let’s say a new Constitution is written and it says it goes into effect when a majority of the states agree to it. As soon as the 26th state ratifies it, the new Constitution is in effect. The remaining states can then either join up or stay behind. We could conceivably end up with two separate countries - one governed by the original Constitution and one governed by the new Constitution. That’s not accurate–11 states tried what you propose once before, Lincoln demonstrated this theory is false. > [@](#): > > This could have happened in 1789. Rhode Island and North Carolina could have decided to stay under the Articles of Confederation and let the other eleven states form a separate country. Unlikely. Firstly the U.S. Constitution actually said it went into effect for all of the thirteen once 3/4ths had ratified it, even in effect for those states that did not. Luckily there were some individuals like George Washington who really wanted to make sure it had unimpeachable legitimacy and he was a quiet leader in pushing for its universal ratification. Other more firebrand Federalists were heavily at work advocating their cause to get the last few States on board. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-are-starting-to-call-for-a-constitutional-convention/745243.md?page=3)