Comment on YSK Article Five of the United States Constitution
dhork@lemmy.world 18 hours agoThere are no rules at all to a constitutional convention, any rules are set by the delegates themselves. The last time we had one, they were charged with revising the Articles of Confederation, and decided to rip the whole thing up and write the Constitution. And this time, they have an official ruling that “money is speech”, which will guarantee a ton of corporate cash flowing in to influence it.
Conservatives here have been looking to the convention process as a way to rip up parts of the Constitution they don’t like. They can rewrite anything they want, and revoke rights we’ve had for hundreds of years. Yes, they still need 38 states to adopt it in the end, but as I covered above, they have complete control of many of the states they need to accomplish this.
And if this happens, what happens to the 12 Liberal states who do not go along with these changes? They will likely just leave, and make their own new country, with the original principles intact.
At least the amendment process only changes one thing at a time. A convention will blow it all up, and likely result in the country splitting in two. The only bright spot may be that it might be done without resorting to a civil war first.
melvisntnormal@feddit.uk 16 hours ago
I agree with everything you said, but I’m not talking about conventions to propose amendments, I’m talking about the ones to ratify amendments. Could a Democratic Congress with 2/3rds of each chamber pass a veto-proof law to regulate the ratifying conventions, then pass amendments specifying that they must be ratified by conventions, similar to how prohibition was repealed? As I understand it, the convention route was created by the founding fathers specifically in case they needed to bypass state legislatures.
dhork@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
The statewide convention seems to be an interesting approach, but one that is easily ratfucked by a party intent on doing so. Your links mention the process used in various states, including New Mexico, where the state convention is simply composed of the state legislature.
Most states seem to hold an election, though, where they put all candidates on the ballot and allow people to vote for all of them. So, envision a long ballot with 100 sets of “for” and “against” names, and voters have to vote for each one. Yes, they could make it simpler, but they probably won’t , in an attempt to make it so complicated that one side can seek to invalidate votes cast for the other.
It seems to give the veneer of democracy, but still provide enough ambiguity for the State government to put its thumb in the scale. I’d like like to see some state say “The convention is every eligible voter, and the election on a strict yes/no vote determines the findings of the convention”. Maybe California can do this, they are big on statewide referendums.
melvisntnormal@feddit.uk 13 hours ago
New Mexico was the reason I was thinking that Congress would have to pass federal legislation first to dictate how state ratifying conventions are run.
Again, from someone on the outside looking in, it seems like the option with the best chance of succeeding. But I also think Article V itself should be amended to explicitly use referendums to ratify amendments. Maybe even take a page out of Switzerland’s book?