At the end of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin encouraged his fellow delegates to go home to their states and persuade their compatriots to ratify the document the convention had produced. “I confess that I do not entirely approve of this Constitution at present,” Franklin acknowledged. But he doubted that his judgment was perfect. “I doubt too whether any other convention we can obtain may be able to make a better Constitution.” The convention had done the best it could; now it was up to the people.
Amending the Constitution where needed, YES. I can think of a few important examples Replacing it would be a stupidity in my personal opinion. It could be the first step towards the end of constitutional government. Too many people today are influenced by totalitarianism and fanaticism. If they could they would tear up the Constitutional and leave us a tyrannical government.
And I thought I was going to enjoy a leisurely Saturday afternoon watching a horse race from New York and a baseball game from Palo Alto, not contemplating weighty questions raised by this new essay.
If by order of thirty-four states, Congress set a place and time for a new convention, if the convention met and wrote a new Constitution, which specified that it would take effect for the first thirty-eight (not all 50) states that ratify, where would that leave the non-ratifiers? Where would it leave the Constitution? Where would that leave the old federal government? Where would that leave property presently in federal ownership and control?
How could a new constitution, then in effect for the ratifying states, have any authority over non-ratifying states, their citizens, their property, and the federally owned property-parks, courthouses, buildings, highways, military bases, and nuclear weapons, then located in those non-ratifying states, military bases located in other countries through leases with those countries, naval vessels in international waters, aircraft in international airspace and in outer space, and the like? What about treaties made with other foreign governments? With a “new government” wouldn’t all those treaties be no longer binding, at least arguably, on the ratifying states or on the foreign governments? If the old federal government would continue to operate under the existing Constitution and in those states that did not ratify the new constitution, why wouldn’t federal assets remain with them?
I have probably taken around ten oaths, pledges, and vows in my life, and in four of the five oaths, I pledged to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If Texas ratified the new constitution, would I then be relieved of my obligations and duties to the Constitution of the United States?
The “new” constitution cannot be truly a new constitution, but an amendment, perhaps writ large and grossly, of the existing Constitution of the United States, and be binding upon all of the states, including the non-ratifying ones, as long as three fourths of the states did ratify it. Or, more pragmatically, as happened in 1790, when Rhode Island was the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution, now when every state ratifies it.
Otherwise, we have a great problem of legitimate succession of power and authority. Isn’t that the problem that all empires have experienced, from the Mongol Empire; Egyptian and Chinese Dynasties; Greek, Roman, Holy Roman, Portuguese, Spanish, French, British, Austrian, Russian andJapanese Empires?
And more currently, isn’t that really why billions are being spent and thousands dying in Ukraine? Nasty knots these questions of constitutional law tie.
What if the new constitution stated that it would take affect when 30 of the states had ratified it? This would be analogous to the change from the Articles to our Constitution. How would that be handled?
Solving the problems of power and authority can't be done by law alone. We must have a reservoir of good will and common sense. If not, Lord of the Flies.
I disagree with this statement asserting "Progressives, by contrast, like big government,"
Progressives don't "like" big government. Saying it that way frames the discussion from the point of view of the conservatives! Progressives want a government that actually works FOR the people with a strong social safety net. The current government under our current Constitution is skewed toward conservatives. The structure is basically locked into an ability to obstruct.
We see this from the nature of the Supreme Court and the Electoral College. SCOTUS has ranged far beyond the scope the Founders imagined for it and is running roughshod over the other two branches. And the EC has become the last refuge for minority rule and a block on the concept of democracy and equal weight in voting.
Jefferson suggested that the Constitution be rewritten every 19 or 20 years. While I certainly don't advocate that radical a solution, a formal periodic amendment process could relieve some of the extreme partisan pressure that we seem to be laboring under now. How that process would be structured is a difficult question that I don't pretend to be able to answer.
Allow me to advance a counter argumentum ad verecundiam: “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles.”-Abraham Lincoln, August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan, quoted by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee on the 221st Anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, September 18, 2008, Extension of Remarks, Congressional Record.
And yet . . . The 13th, 14th and 15th amendment were the necessary result of the Civil War. There was nothing prior to the passage of those amendments which would have constitutionally banned slavery. In fact the Constitution specifically countenanced it.
Since then we have had to contort the original words of the Constitution to do what was necessary for the continuance of our nation. The Commerce Clause has been stretched almost beyond recognition. We have had to make a-Constitutional, if not un constitutional, adjustments to allow for modern technological and social changes.
A method of periodically revisiting the Constitution in light of the current state of our country would allow us to approach these necessary changes directly. This would be in the spirit of the authors of the Constitution who well knew that there were situtations and conditions that they had not sufficiently addressed and would require experimentation and change to resolve.
Amending the Constitution where needed, YES. I can think of a few important examples Replacing it would be a stupidity in my personal opinion. It could be the first step towards the end of constitutional government. Too many people today are influenced by totalitarianism and fanaticism. If they could they would tear up the Constitutional and leave us a tyrannical government.
And I thought I was going to enjoy a leisurely Saturday afternoon watching a horse race from New York and a baseball game from Palo Alto, not contemplating weighty questions raised by this new essay.
If by order of thirty-four states, Congress set a place and time for a new convention, if the convention met and wrote a new Constitution, which specified that it would take effect for the first thirty-eight (not all 50) states that ratify, where would that leave the non-ratifiers? Where would it leave the Constitution? Where would that leave the old federal government? Where would that leave property presently in federal ownership and control?
How could a new constitution, then in effect for the ratifying states, have any authority over non-ratifying states, their citizens, their property, and the federally owned property-parks, courthouses, buildings, highways, military bases, and nuclear weapons, then located in those non-ratifying states, military bases located in other countries through leases with those countries, naval vessels in international waters, aircraft in international airspace and in outer space, and the like? What about treaties made with other foreign governments? With a “new government” wouldn’t all those treaties be no longer binding, at least arguably, on the ratifying states or on the foreign governments? If the old federal government would continue to operate under the existing Constitution and in those states that did not ratify the new constitution, why wouldn’t federal assets remain with them?
I have probably taken around ten oaths, pledges, and vows in my life, and in four of the five oaths, I pledged to support, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If Texas ratified the new constitution, would I then be relieved of my obligations and duties to the Constitution of the United States?
The “new” constitution cannot be truly a new constitution, but an amendment, perhaps writ large and grossly, of the existing Constitution of the United States, and be binding upon all of the states, including the non-ratifying ones, as long as three fourths of the states did ratify it. Or, more pragmatically, as happened in 1790, when Rhode Island was the last of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution, now when every state ratifies it.
Otherwise, we have a great problem of legitimate succession of power and authority. Isn’t that the problem that all empires have experienced, from the Mongol Empire; Egyptian and Chinese Dynasties; Greek, Roman, Holy Roman, Portuguese, Spanish, French, British, Austrian, Russian andJapanese Empires?
And more currently, isn’t that really why billions are being spent and thousands dying in Ukraine? Nasty knots these questions of constitutional law tie.
Jim Guleke
What if the new constitution stated that it would take affect when 30 of the states had ratified it? This would be analogous to the change from the Articles to our Constitution. How would that be handled?
Solving the problems of power and authority can't be done by law alone. We must have a reservoir of good will and common sense. If not, Lord of the Flies.
I disagree with this statement asserting "Progressives, by contrast, like big government,"
Progressives don't "like" big government. Saying it that way frames the discussion from the point of view of the conservatives! Progressives want a government that actually works FOR the people with a strong social safety net. The current government under our current Constitution is skewed toward conservatives. The structure is basically locked into an ability to obstruct.
We see this from the nature of the Supreme Court and the Electoral College. SCOTUS has ranged far beyond the scope the Founders imagined for it and is running roughshod over the other two branches. And the EC has become the last refuge for minority rule and a block on the concept of democracy and equal weight in voting.
Jefferson suggested that the Constitution be rewritten every 19 or 20 years. While I certainly don't advocate that radical a solution, a formal periodic amendment process could relieve some of the extreme partisan pressure that we seem to be laboring under now. How that process would be structured is a difficult question that I don't pretend to be able to answer.
Allow me to advance a counter argumentum ad verecundiam: “Don’t interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties. And not to Democrats alone do I make this appeal, but to all who love these great and true principles.”-Abraham Lincoln, August 27, 1856 Speech at Kalamazoo, Michigan, quoted by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee on the 221st Anniversary of the signing of the Constitution, September 18, 2008, Extension of Remarks, Congressional Record.
And yet . . . The 13th, 14th and 15th amendment were the necessary result of the Civil War. There was nothing prior to the passage of those amendments which would have constitutionally banned slavery. In fact the Constitution specifically countenanced it.
Since then we have had to contort the original words of the Constitution to do what was necessary for the continuance of our nation. The Commerce Clause has been stretched almost beyond recognition. We have had to make a-Constitutional, if not un constitutional, adjustments to allow for modern technological and social changes.
A method of periodically revisiting the Constitution in light of the current state of our country would allow us to approach these necessary changes directly. This would be in the spirit of the authors of the Constitution who well knew that there were situtations and conditions that they had not sufficiently addressed and would require experimentation and change to resolve.
It seems ironic that a state is not allowed to leave the union, but the union can leave the state.
The new constitution could be the current constitution with the following clause added:
Texas and Texans will pay a tax four times greater than the rate of any and all other states.
or
Life begins at 12 years of age in Texas.