Constitutional convention?

Bob001

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
16,613
Location
US of A
From time to time, partisans on both/all sides have called for a constitutional convention to change some aspect of the current constitution. Scholars contend that such a convention could be catastrophic because it could not be limited to any particular purpose and would create the possibility of rewriting everything (replacing the President with a ruling council, making courts subordinate to Congress, ending free speech, establishing a state religion, anything). There is also the problem that getting a whole new constitution approved by the states would be even harder than passing an amendment.

Nevertheless, subject for discussion: If you were rewriting the Constitution, what would you change? I would start with making the Senate more representative (expanding it as necessary), imposing term limits on Congress and federal judges, limiting the 2nd Amendment, and eliminating the Electoral College (probably priority one).

Discuss.
 
Bob001 said:
From time to time, partisans on both/all sides have called for a constitutional convention to change some aspect of the current constitution. Scholars contend that such a convention could be catastrophic because it could not be limited to any particular purpose and would create the possibility of rewriting everything (replacing the President with a ruling council, making courts subordinate to Congress, ending free speech, establishing a state religion, anything). There is also the problem that getting a whole new constitution approved by the states would be even harder than passing an amendment.

Nevertheless, subject for discussion: If you were rewriting the Constitution, what would you change? I would start with making the Senate more representative (expanding it as necessary), imposing term limits on Congress and federal judges, limiting the 2nd Amendment, and eliminating the Electoral College (probably priority one).

Discuss.
Click to expand...

I would keep the Bill of Rights.

I would limit the President's ability to pardon anyone who had worked for the President's campaign or in his staff or himself.

I would limit both campaign contributions and lobbying significantly. There would be a minimum of 3 years moratorium from accepting jobs, honorariums, speaking fees or gifts of any kind from any company or association that had lobbied respective congressmen, senators or white house staff. You couldnt vote to give tax breaks to a company and then accept money from them the next. For me, the biggest problem is that legislation is for sale. This would be my first priority.

I would make it clear that the establishment clause limits all government involvement in religion, including any and all tax exemptions or preferences.

Universal suffrage for anyone over the age of 18 that could not be suppressed in any way. If there was a question eligibility, a voter could sign a document and be photographed and their vote would have to be counted. There is no excuse not to let everyone vote.

I would make it easier to approve amendments. Not exactly sure how I would do that, but it needs to be a little bit easier.
 
Last edited:
A single six-year term for the President, four-year terms for Senators, maximum of four. Or maybe just eliminate the Senate altogether. As currently constituted, it's terribly non-representative -- a citizen of Wyoming has more than 68 times the Senate representation of a Californian.

I've long thought that electoral votes should be divided by congressional district, as is currently done in Nebraska and I think Vermont. HOWEVER: That's far too open to abuse by gerrymandering to be a good idea now.
 
Bob001 said:
From time to time, partisans on both/all sides have called for a constitutional convention to change some aspect of the current constitution. Scholars contend that such a convention could be catastrophic because it could not be limited to any particular purpose and would create the possibility of rewriting everything (replacing the President with a ruling council, making courts subordinate to Congress, ending free speech, establishing a state religion, anything). There is also the problem that getting a whole new constitution approved by the states would be even harder than passing an amendment.

Nevertheless, subject for discussion: If you were rewriting the Constitution, what would you change? I would start with making the Senate more representative (expanding it as necessary), imposing term limits on Congress and federal judges, limiting the 2nd Amendment, and eliminating the Electoral College (probably priority one).
Click to expand...

Looking at the risk/reward ratio there, would you say it was worth running the risks of the bad things happening that you mention in the first paragraph in order to gain your wish list?
 
acbytesla said:
I would keep the Bill of Rights.

I would limit the President's ability to pardon anyone who had worked for the President's campaign or in his staff or himself.

I would limit both campaign contributions and lobbying significantly. There would be a minimum of 3 years moratorium from accepting jobs, honorariums, speaking fees or gifts of any kind from any company or association that had lobbied respective congressmen, senators or white house staff. You couldnt vote to give tax breaks to a company and then accept money from them the next. For me, the biggest problem is that legislation is for sale. This would be my first priority.

I would make it clear that the establishment clause limits all government involvement in religion, including any and all tax exemptions or preferences.

Universal suffrage for anyone over the age of 18 that could not be suppressed in any way. If there was a question eligibility, a voter could sign a document and be photographed and their vote would have to be counted. There is no excuse not to let everyone vote.

I would make it easier to approve amendments. Not exactly sure how I would do that, but it needs to be a little bit easier.
Click to expand...


The strength of the Constitution has been that it establishes basic principles, and leaves the details to legislators. It would be a mistake to say "You can't pardon your staff," but you might say something like "Congress may overrule presidential pardons by a vote of two-thirds of the members of both houses." Rather than imposing campaign finance details, you might say something like "For the purposes of this Constitution, corporations and other entities created by law will not be treated as human persons." Etc.
 
acbytesla said:
I would keep the Bill of Rights.

I would limit the President's ability to pardon anyone who had worked for the President's campaign or in his staff or himself.

I would limit both campaign contributions and lobbying significantly. There would be a minimum of 3 years moratorium from accepting jobs, honorariums, speaking fees or gifts of any kind from any company or association that had lobbied respective congressmen, senators or white house staff. You couldnt vote to give tax breaks to a company and then accept money from them the next. For me, the biggest problem is that legislation is for sale. This would be my first priority.

I would make it clear that the establishment clause limits all government involvement in religion, including any and all tax exemptions or preferences.

Universal suffrage for anyone over the age of 18 that could not be suppressed in any way. If there was a question eligibility, a voter could sign a document and be photographed and their vote would have to be counted. There is no excuse not to let everyone vote.

I would make it easier to approve amendments. Not exactly sure how I would do that, but it needs to be a little bit easier.
Click to expand...
All excellent ideas except the 2nd Amendment needs some revising to make it common sense restrictive.

I would also change the way the SCOTUS justices are chosen. At a minimum people like McConnell should not be able to delay a choice.

I think a 18 year term is in order with a purposeful staggering of the timeframe so the justices reach the end of their terms in different POTUS terms (three each if you go with the single 6 year POTUS term. Nine justices, one 18 year term ends every two years. For deaths in office the replacement serves out the rest of the term.

And there needs to be a different way the Senate and House calendars are chosen, not allowing the majority leaders to block bills that have the potential to pass with bipartisan support.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
The strength of the Constitution has been that it establishes basic principles, and leaves the details to legislators. It would be a mistake to say "You can't pardon your staff," but you might say something like "Congress may overrule presidential pardons by a vote of two-thirds of the members of both houses." Rather than imposing campaign finance details, you might say something like "For the purposes of this Constitution, corporations and other entities created by law will not be treated as human persons." Etc.
Click to expand...
What is the point of the POTUS pardon that you believe the POTUS needs?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What is the point of the POTUS pardon that you believe the POTUS needs?
Click to expand...

You don't think the President should have the power to grant pardons and commutations? It has been used to reverse unjust convictions and to reward people who have lived law-abiding lives after youthful crimes. It is usually the result of formal applications to the Pardon Office, which investigates applicants and makes recommendations to the White House. Most applications are denied, and few pardons have been controversial. The problem is not the pardon power, it's that this President is exercising it improperly.

You think Trump was wrong about this one?
President Donald Trump has commuted the sentence of Alice Marie Johnson, a first-time nonviolent drug offender, a week after Kim Kardashian West pleaded her case during an Oval Office meeting with Trump.

Johnson has already served 21 years of a life sentence after she was convicted on charges of conspiracy to possess cocaine and attempted possession of cocaine, according to the nonprofit Can-Do, which advocates for clemency for non-violent drug offenders.
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/alice-marie-johnson-commuted-sentence/index.html
 
Bob001 said:
You don't think the President should have the power to grant pardons and commutations? It has been used to reverse unjust convictions and to reward people who have lived law-abiding lives after youthful crimes. It is usually the result of formal applications to the Pardon Office, which investigates applicants and makes recommendations to the White House. Most applications are denied, and few pardons have been controversial. The problem is not the pardon power, it's that this President is exercising it improperly.

You think Trump was wrong about this one?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/alice-marie-johnson-commuted-sentence/index.html
Click to expand...
I was referring to your objection about pardoning his staff. I should have worded my post differently.
It would be a mistake to say "You can't pardon your staff,"
Click to expand...
I don't understand that.

Two recent pardoned staff have been convicted of crimes committed in cahoots with their respective POTUS. Maybe if you are going to break the law for your boss you should have reason to pause.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I was referring to your objection about pardoning his staff. I should have worded my post differently. I don't understand that.

Two recent pardoned staff have been convicted of crimes committed in cahoots with their respective POTUS. Maybe if you are going to break the law for your boss you should have reason to pause.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the specificity of the language. It would be better for the Constitution to allow Congress to review all pardons, rather than say "There are some people you can't pardon." For one thing, the more specific you are, the easier it would be to evade it. Is an unpaid volunteer "staff?" Is a non-government employee of a campaign organization "staff?" Is an employee of an independent PAC "staff?" Suppose the pardon would be for some youthful indiscretion that had nothing to do with the President? Etc. And that would be true of all constitutional provisions. The basic idea is to establish a principle ("no unreasonable searches") and let legislators and the courts and legislators decide what's "unreasonable" and what's a "search."
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
I was referring to the specificity of the language. It would be better for the Constitution to allow Congress to review all pardons, rather than say "There are some people you can't pardon." For one thing, the more specific you are, the easier it would be to evade it. Is an unpaid volunteer "staff?" Is a non-government employee of a campaign organization "staff?" Is an employee of an independent PAC "staff?" Suppose the pardon would be for some youthful indiscretion that had nothing to do with the President? Etc. And that would be true of all constitutional provisions. The basic idea is to establish a principle ("no unreasonable searches") and let legislators and the courts and legislators decide what's "unreasonable" and what's a "search."
Click to expand...

But we could end up with what we have now, a fair number of Congress persons are in on this corruption with Trump. How would you write a protection from the corruption self pardon allows?

Perhaps write an exception for the kinds of crimes for which pardons were not allowed?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
All excellent ideas except the 2nd Amendment needs some revising to make it common sense restrictive.

I would also change the way the SCOTUS justices are chosen. At a minimum people like McConnell should not be able to delay a choice.

I think a 18 year term is in order with a purposeful staggering of the timeframe so the justices reach the end of their terms in different POTUS terms (three each if you go with the single 6 year POTUS term. Nine justices, one 18 year term ends every two years. For deaths in office the replacement serves out the rest of the term.

And there needs to be a different way the Senate and House calendars are chosen, not allowing the majority leaders to block bills that have the potential to pass with bipartisan support.
Click to expand...

I like your ideas on SCOTUS.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I was referring to your objection about pardoning his staff. I should have worded my post differently. I don't understand that.

Two recent pardoned staff have been convicted of crimes committed in cahoots with their respective POTUS. Maybe if you are going to break the law for your boss you should have reason to pause.
Click to expand...

Who do you mean? Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative commentator, but never a Trump employee. Scooter Libby worked for Nixon. Allowing Congress to review all pardons is a sufficient safeguard. Or would you try to draft a clause like "The President can't pardon anybody who supports him?"
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
But we could end up with what we have now, a fair number of Congress persons are in on this corruption with Trump. How would you write a protection from the corruption self pardon allows?

Perhaps write an exception for the kinds of crimes for which pardons were not allowed?
Click to expand...

The system we have has worked pretty well for more than two centuries. The problem is Trump not following the procedures and traditions that have bound previous Presidents. Reagan, Bush and Clinton all granted a few controversial pardons, but most were routine. Creating a category of crimes that are not pardonable might create an incentive for opponents to try convict people unjustly of those specific crimes. A couple of questionable Trump pardons is not sufficient ground to eliminate an important executive function. And it's certainly not the worst thing Trump has done.
 
Bob001 said:
I was referring to the specificity of the language. It would be better for the Constitution to allow Congress to review all pardons, rather than say "There are some people you can't pardon." For one thing, the more specific you are, the easier it would be to evade it. Is an unpaid volunteer "staff?" Is a non-government employee of a campaign organization "staff?" Is an employee of an independent PAC "staff?" Suppose the pardon would be for some youthful indiscretion that had nothing to do with the President? Etc. And that would be true of all constitutional provisions. The basic idea is to establish a principle ("no unreasonable searches") and let legislators and the courts and legislators decide what's "unreasonable" and what's a "search."
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a good idea for Congress to review pardons. It's bureaucratic challenge for anyone to get clemency or pardons at the best of circumstances. I think having Congress review pardons creates a political minefield that I'm afraid would make pardons even more difficult and rare than they already are.

I just want to eliminate the possibility of people like the Watergate plumbers or Whitehouse staff to commit crimes with the knowledge they can do the wrong thing because they have a get out of jail free card in their back pocket.
 
Bob001 said:
Who do you mean? Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative commentator, but never a Trump employee. Scooter Libby worked for Nixon Cheney. Allowing Congress to review all pardons is a sufficient safeguard. Or would you try to draft a clause like "The President can't pardon anybody who supports him?"
Click to expand...

FTFY. Libby may have worked for Nixon early in his career. I didn't bother to look that up. The crimes he was pardoned for were committed when he was Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.
 
At such a convention I'd vote to grant emergency powers to the chancellor because by that point it's too late, the empire is happening and I want to be on the side that doesn't get butchered.
 
If a State's population is in the bottom quartile, 1 Senator. Similarly, 1 additional Senator if in top quartile. 1 Senator for DC, and 1 for US territories (jointly), all voting seats.
***
Why not: Change in status of ND, SD, WY, northern NE and eastern half MT: contiguous Native American land, fully independent, with reparations and right of way through Minnesota to the Great Lakes. Change in status of NM, AZ, southern CA: returned to Mexico, "because insults." Together with the above, that also goes a long way to taking care of the rural tail wagging the urban dog.
 
acbytesla said:
FTFY. Libby may have worked for Nixon early in his career. I didn't bother to look that up. The crimes he was pardoned for were committed when he was Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff.
Click to expand...

I should have said he worked for the Nixon administration. He was also an assistant to Nixon. The crimes he was convicted of were an attempt to discredit a critic of the Nixon administration. He wasn't acting to boost Cheney.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby
 
- Abolish the electoral collage. Instant runoff voting for President.
- Abolish gerrymandering. Shortest split line algorithm creation of voting districts.
- Term limits. 2 terms for President. 4 terms for House and Senate. Ten years appointments for SCOTUS (one reconfirmation allowed for another 10 year term for a max of 20). These would be grandfathered in and/or staggered so we don't have have more than, say 1/3 coming up for mandatory replacement at a time.
- Executive Decisions would only be valid while the POTUS who signs them are in office. (Automatic 30-45 day-ish grace period in cases of sudden death of the sitting President so the new POTUS could review and draft their own.)
 
Bob001 said:
Who do you mean? Dinesh D'Souza is a conservative commentator, but never a Trump employee. Scooter Libby worked for Nixon. Allowing Congress to review all pardons is a sufficient safeguard. Or would you try to draft a clause like "The President can't pardon anybody who supports him?"
Click to expand...
I had Oliver North and Scooter Libby in mind in my post, both fell on their swords. They committed crimes involving the POTUS and were convicted.

Are you confusing G Gordan Liddy with Libby?

How about a POTUS can't pardon someone involved in crimes the POTUS benefitted from including political gain?
 
Bob001 said:
I should have said he worked for the Nixon administration. He was also an assistant to Nixon. The crimes he was convicted of were an attempt to discredit a critic of the Nixon administration. He wasn't acting to boost Cheney.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby
Click to expand...

I don't know where you get Nixon. He was in Columbia law school during the Nixon administration. Do you read your own citation links?

In October 2005, Libby resigned from all three government positions after he was indicted on five counts by a federal grand jury concerning the investigation of the leak of the covert identity of Central Intelligence Agency officer Valerie Plame Wilson.[5] He was subsequently convicted of four counts (one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements),

After earning his J.D. from Columbia in 1975, Libby joined the firm of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis LLP, becoming a partner the following year (1976).[22] He was admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on October 27, 1976,[31][32][33] and to the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on May 19, 1978.[34][35]

Libby practiced law at Schnader for six years before joining the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, at the invitation of his former Yale professor, Paul Wolfowitz, in 1981.[22] In 1985, returning to private practice, he joined the firm then known as Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin (now Dickstein Shapiro LLP), becoming a partner in 1986 and working there until 1989, when he left to work in the U.S. Defense Department, again under his former Yale professor Paul Wolfowitz, until January 1993.[22][31][33][
Click to expand...
 
Bob001 said:
I should have said he worked for the Nixon administration. He was also an assistant to Nixon. The crimes he was convicted of were an attempt to discredit a critic of the Nixon administration. He wasn't acting to boost Cheney.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby
Click to expand...
No, you're still confused.

Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame in a bid to discredit her husband Ambassador Wilson who had blown the whistle on the fake news story (planted by Cheney via Judith Miller) about Saddam trying to get yellowcake from Niger.

G Gordan Liddy was involved in Watergate.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, you're still confused.

Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame in a bid to discredit her husband Ambassador Wilson who had blown the whistle on the fake news story (planted by Cheney via Judith Miller) about Saddam trying to get yellowcake from Niger.

G Gordan Liddy was involved in Watergate.
Click to expand...

Boy, we really ganged up on him.:boxedin:
 
Make the president answerable to someone between elections. He has too much power in one man and does not need to answer for it to anyone.
 
I'd start by giving Texas back to Mexico, even if we have to go to war to force them to accept it.

Then I'd build a land bridge across the Bering Strait so that we really can see Russia from here.

Finally, I'd making whining a capital offense.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, you're still confused.

Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame in a bid to discredit her husband Ambassador Wilson who had blown the whistle on the fake news story (planted by Cheney via Judith Miller) about Saddam trying to get yellowcake from Niger.

G Gordan Liddy was involved in Watergate.
Click to expand...


Of course. I know who Scooter Libby is, and Valerie Plame, but I was thinking Nixon when I meant Bush. Twice. I stand corrected, embarrassedly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom