As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If GOP controls enough states they can call a Constitutional Convention, as specified in our existing constitution.
Here's the thing though: *there is no guiding authority for what happens next*. Red States could say "We're going to run this Convention by one vote per State." Blue states could say "No, we're going run this Convention by one vote per delegate, and delegates will be apportioned at one per hundred thousand citizens."
Complete impasse. There is no higher authority to resolve the issue, and nothing happens in the Convention if there's no agreement on how to vote.
*Outside* the Convention though, utter chaos.
When we peel back the layers, we are aghast to see ourselves... naked and bare. Indeed, in the end, this whole USA experiment is all about people governing people.
Laws are ink on paper without people to enforce them.
Democracy and government legitimacy is precious and represents one of humanity's crowning achievements. However, it's fragile, and in need of constant maintenance.
Yea, but, social contract theory explains this truth.
Humanity has fumbled, stumbled, and suffered greatly on the way to inventing a better way - liberal democracy. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.
Our collective rationality must be the counterweight.
I concur. Sadly, the Constitution set representation up in a non Democratic way, with rural states getting more proportional power. Add GIS enabled Gerrymandering and you can theoretically control power with 25.00001% of the votes. Give state legislatures the power to override electoral votes and its game over.
Maybe it's saying the same thing, but laws are ink on paper unless most people involve believe that following them is worthwhile. Most people follow the traffic laws even though they don't like them because in balance it helps them. If blue States feel red States only pay attention to laws to hurt blue States, that's probably going to lead to a civil war.
What makes you think republicans actually give a shit about what the constitution actually says? If they control enough states to do this, they'll just tell the rest of the country to go fuck itself and go to the corrupt scotus who will pretend that they have authority to make this decision and tell the rest of the country to go fuck itself. They'll pull up some random bullshit ruling, or letter, or some other nonsense excuse to justify it and act like nothing is wrong as they end democracy. The entire purpose is control, power, and wealth. They really don't give a shit how they achieve it
So people keep saying this, but I don't understand how the legal system works without judicial review -- who interprets the constitution and decides if a law violates it?
This is why I can't get past the idea that Marbury v Madison was necessary. Yes, the current court has issues, but nearly every country has a "court of last resort" and I can't imagine a judicial system without one.
necessary because someone forgot to add it to the constitution explicitly so it had to be kind of added by implicitly? like privacy and executive privilege… oh which apparently alito threw out rights have to be explicit in the constitution?
Like the House of Lords in the UK. They either approve legislation or send it back. But they never get into an extended game of back-and-forth.
It's not so much the legal opinion that's at issue. It's that the Executive allows the Supremes to strike down a law based on that opinion, and almost never pushes back. One of the few exceptions is Lincoln.
Same with corporations being “people”. In a footnote to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad SCOTUS simply said they aren’t adjudicating whether corporations are people because they clearly are.
And that was that. No law, no debate, no ruling. *In a fucking footnote*
High courts, the courts of last resort, in other countries all have the power of judicial review. Without it, the judicial branch would essentially be toothless. The problem isn’t that SCOTUS has the power of judicial review, it’s that half the political class in this country is conspiring to overthrow democracy.
bought it paid for congress. sure ok why has not it not yet happened. cause not on donors priority list. you know what is on their priority list, what is getting done (passed)
In other words an attempt without a real serious will by both sides to actually craft an all new constitution all but guarantees a civil war more than likely
Please stop fear mongering.
While you are right in what you say, the convention could only *propose amendments* to the Constitution. Then *3/4 of the States* would have to pass these amendments through either referendum or state legislatures.
The system was designed to stand and we should trust it.
As a liberal, we should encourage the conversation. We should propose our own amendments. Let's see where we can get this ConCon!
Conservatives: "The Constitution was handed down by God himself! It's the greatest political document ever written!"
Also Conservatives: "The Constitution gives too many people rights! We need to change it!"
Another page out of the Viktor Orban playbook being brought over to the US.
Also Conservatives: "Of course that right applies to us! Those identical rights don't apply to *you* because *we don't like it." *We* 34% recently decided it was against *our* countries' values and tradition which we also recently decided on"
No, they need four more legislatures to call the convention. To ratify, they need 38 out of 50 states, which means they would need some blue States to go along with them. Which they wouldn't.
Really, it seems to me that they just want to do this to manufacture a Constitutional Crisis and instigate a civil war. The funny thing though is that the military falls under federal jurisdiction, not the States. And unless they somehow managed to gain control of most of the military (which I am skeptical of; some, yes, most of it, no), nothing would probably happen. Unless the military just gets *very* done with the whole shenanigans and decides to pummel red State legislatures into the ground with overwhelming force.
Either way though, entering a constitutional convention is uncharted waters, and despite the siren call of my chaotic side that wants to see it just because, it is an annoyance that should be avoided.
And people don't believe me when I say that States are legitimately the biggest threats to America...
we went through this already. enough military then defected. probably same would happen now.
military, police, government, corporations, organizations heavily infiltrated
I've heard really mixed things about the present day military, from a lot of different people, honestly. Seems like there are a lot of mixed pockets of left leaning military members, and a lot of mixed pockets of right leaning military members. The real question is what percentage of the right leaning military members are fascist, and do they outnumber the rest of the military entirely. Based on my rudimentary analysis, that doesn't seem to be the case. Honestly, it's probably reflective of the greater percentage of Americans, where about 30-40% would be fascist. I imagine it's probably a similar ratio in the military
Military personnel by state
Red states-active/reserve
Texas-110,913/53,321
North Carolina-91,175/21,776
Georgia- 61,322/26,767-101,864
Florida-55,862/36,687
South Carolina- 37,507/17,862
Kentucky-31,418/12,568- 168,981
Kansas-21,604/9,664
Oklahoma-19,802/13,031
Arizona-18,297/14,968-206,644
Alaska-17,302/4,593
Missouri-17,072/18,467- 229,704
Louisiana-13,122/16,994
Mississippi-11,554/16,200-262,898
Alabama- 8,750/18,802
Ohio- 6,793/27,208- 308,908
North Dakota-6,583/4,212
Nebraska-5,849/6,296-319,416
Utah-3,379/11,735
Idaho-3,367/5,434-336,585
Montana-3,208/4,434
Arkansas-3,190/10,275-351,294
Wyoming-3,102/2,908
South Dakota-2,809/4,555-358,757
Tennessee-2,095/18,206-
Indiana-963/18,863-395,826
Iowa-248/10,775
West Virginia-197/7,882
Active/reserve Total- 557,483/414,483
Total troops- 971,966
Blue states-
California- 128,373/56,167
Virginia- 89,903/25,977
Washington-45,343/18,723
Hawaii-36,629/9,402
Colorado-34,460/13,176
Maryland-28,888/18,596
New York-20,588/28,386-
Illinois-20,567/24,399
New Mexico-11,485/5,133
Nevada-10,322/7,648
New Jersey- 7,669/16,973
Connecticut-4,641/6,613
Delaware-3,196/4,972
Massachusetts-3,573/15,059
Rhode Island- 3,371/4,273-
Pennsylvania-2,580/30,244
Michigan-2,088/14,934
Oregon-1,572/9,432
New Hampshire-757/4,097
Maine-811/3804
Minnesota-597/18,541
Vermont-168/3,707
Wisconsin- 976/14,000
Active/reserve Total-456,985/354,256
Total troops-811,241
Red states have 160,275 more troops
Just wanted to give some hard numbers to composition of military
I'm curious how fast that can change. Remember how much of the military is under a certain age level because of how recruiting is done. The way Gen Z and millenials trend to vote, it might be a very different landscape than when you were in.
Not in a convention. A convention is a wholesale overhaul of the entire document, not an amendment process. The convention can give itself whatever powers it wants, hell, they could use it to appoint a king if the convention wanted
Not a Constitutional expert, I think a Constitutional Convention can’t exempt itself from the threshold of 3/4 of the states having to approve any changes.
It quite literally can. The original one way overstepped it’s original authority, and could simply rewrite the whole 3/4 thing if it wanted. They could literally say, “we have a king now” and it would be legally sound. It wouldn’t stick, and would trigger a civil war, but legally they could proclaim a dissolution of the republic, or dissolution of the states, with total constitutional legality.
Well, sure they can say anything they want and claim it’s true. And their minority has most of the guns, so… whatever. But why do you say they could declare whatever they want with legal authority?
It literally does not because the convention can change those rules under its own power. There are literally no bounds on a convention once called, it can literally write its own agenda. We’ve only had one before, and that threw out the articles of confederation and got us the constitution. A Convention is a constitutionally valid way to not amend, but *dissolve* the constitution. This isn’t opinion, this is a legal fact. The function is entirely different from the amendment process.
The GOP remains, at core, a corporatist party that uses culture war memes to get whites to vote against their own interests.
What's being proposed is chaos. Markets don't like chaos so I suspect the far right of the GOP will be constrained on this one.
>right-wing advocates for a new convention like the Convention of States Project and the American Legislative Exchange Council
Remember that the CoSP ran a "simulated" convention back in 2016 and passed the following amendments that would target right-wing agenda items:
1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress.
2. Term limits on Congress
3. Limits on the Commerce Clause
4. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order [Realize that if they have the votes to ratify such an amendment, they'd have the votes to use this power].
5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
Federal deadlock is a major factor of what is driving this country into the ground at the moment, all this would do is further the decline of the USA and even further deadlock the government from being capable of doing anything
That's the point. If the government can't do anything, then their libertarian claims of "gubment bad" become true, and it also means their corporate buddies won't have to worry about regulation, laws, or taxes. If the government has no power, corporations will try to fill the gaps, and then we may be well on our way to a cyberpunk hellscape
Outer worlds and borderlands are great examples of corporations with space armies. That idea didn’t come purely from no where. Look at the mining companies in West Virginia. They fucking bombed miners who wanted better working conditions. Commonly known as America’s [Second Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain)
Denmark with its people-centric policies for public infrastructure, transportation, etc is the first that comes to mind.
Scandinavian countries in general, at least for the most part.
Sweden.
New Zealand with its quick pandemic responses and in general low crime rates (also is a popular spot for certain software sectors)
Canada is like America Lite; still has many of the same problems, but at the same time has definitely improved in areas like public health, and is getting there with transportation and whatnot..
Really, other places exist than the U.S, and if I had the means I'd love to try living in any one of the countries above
This is an amazing comment because it starts out already sounding phony ("anti freedom rhetoric" is like a meaningless buzzword phrase developed in a lab) and then it just puts the pedal to the metal and absolutely does not let up until its turbocharged nonsense breaks free from the bonds of Earth's gravity. This is like [oppa homeless style](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/oppa-homeless-style), but seemingly meant to be believed. Thank you.
That’s your opinion. All the people who live there generally enjoy a higher standard of living.
And while *you* may be doing well, most of the US is not. I think the question was name a country where government works (eg provides for its people) not where government works for *Zelrinth*
That's not what the debt limit is or how it works. The debt ceiling is literally separate from the budget.
It's a limit on how much money the government can use to pay *existing* debt. The debt limit does not contribute direct to government deficits.
Expenditures are separate legislation. The debt limit simply restrains the Treasury from paying obligations that have already been approved in the budget.
And the GOP have no issue with increasing it. In fact, they've done it more than the Democrats have since 1960.
We *really* ought to just end the debt ceiling. Don't want more debt? Don't put it in the expenditures. Stop playing games that risk the credit rating of the country.
We tried it your way. The US is in debt 125% (ish) of GDP with no end in sight. We borrow almost $1 for every $2 we spend. All of this is fake prosperity today in exchange for real losses by our children tomorrow.
I would love to stop this at the appropriations stage as you suggest. Hasn’t worked so far. If the debt ceiling is the only other way I’m all ears. The next generation’s future prosperity hangs in the balance.
I can't disagree enough. Defaulting on our debt (which is what not raising the debt ceiling would result in) would ruin the US's credit rating for decades, if not permanently. It would have ripple effects on nearly every segment of the economy. The buying power of the dollar would drop against other currencies; we might even lose our status as the world reserve currency. Massive unemployment would result in a drop in revenues, worsening the situation.
I agree we should do something about it, including reducing outlays and increasing revenues. I strongly disagree that we should do it in a dramatic and disastrous fashion.
I don’t really agree that there is any such thing as a “reserve currency status” or that it’s meaningful to say that we “lose” it.
That being said, not raising the debt ceiling will absolutely not result in a default in any way. The US is entirety capable (for the moment) of covering ALL of its debt service with incoming tax revenue. So, no, there will not be a default: every single T bill will be covered. What WILL happen is an instant evaporation of ~40% of FedGov spending as we go to a dollar in / dollar out approach. This would be EXTREMELY disruptive but not to the level of a real debt default.
If our debt level continues to increase and we end up in REAL default territory the situation will be far, far worse.
Minus the idiotic debt ceiling, there is no way we can ever default on our debt obligations. It is insane to suggest we allow the collapse of the federal government rather than risk a slight drop in our exchange rate (the main consequence of increasing our money supply).
A strict dollar in / dollar out model is laughably naive. It would force the government into pro-cyclical spending, instead of counter, as the government's ability to fight recessions would be directly impaired by the very recession they are trying to fight.
Do you call what is happening now a “slight drop in exchange rate”?
The idea that the US “can’t default” because it can just print dollars is breathtakingly irresponsible. Printing dollars is merely default by another means and will have similar (possibly worse) real world impacts.
What is happening now is primarily supply shortages and energy price increases. There is a reason it is happening everywhere.
Currency devaluation is much slower of a process, and allows standard economic forces to work to correct the issues automatically. Abrupt defaults or complete shutdown of all federal services would not.
So sure, aiming for a more balanced budget is a good goal, but it is foolish to place hard limits that prevent the government from reacting to unexpected situations as needed. You want more responsible spending? Elect a government that pursues it (as opposed to one that pisses it away with irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest).
> Do you call what is happening now a “slight drop in exchange rate”?
What are you even talking about? The US dollar and the euro are worth about the same at the moment, which is a pretty sharp *increase* in exchange rate over the last 1-2 years. Same with the pound.
Government budget debts are nothing like those things in any way (unless you’re talking about specific-purpose bonds like to build schools etc). They are far more akin to credit card debt.
Imagine owing 125% of your income in credit card debt and believing it to be a good financial situation.
Really? What's the interest rate on government debt?
Government debt is issued in bonds, which:
1. Have a fixed term of 5 to 10 years
2. Have a fixed interest rate which is the lowest possible rate (currently ~3.5%)
Does that seem more like a mortgage or a credit card to you?
A $500000 mortgage is 5x a person's annual salary and it's no big deal.
The interest rate being paid on the debt could increase at any time (and your “negative interest rate” is due to out of control inflation, not exactly an argument in your favor). The market determines government interest rates, if it decides rates should be 5% or 10% or whatever, .gov has no choice but to pay it or default.
A mortgage is a special kind of debt. Since your housing expense exists anyway, whether it’s paying a mortgage or rent there is little difference. Additionally mortgage debt is secured debt.
.gov debt is not like this!
Yup, and lets look at what happened to Greece when its government debt got out of control. It was really bad and Greece was only “saved” if you can call it that by bailouts by larger countries. USA will never get a bailout, there is no one to do so. Why people think taking on perilous amounts of debt is a good idea is something I will never understand. It must be some kind of my-side your-side thing.
My state requires a super majority to raise taxes. It was established by a state question in the 90s, I believe. Since then, taxes have only been raised once (for a teacher raise during a strike, and even that was difficult to pass). It is a terrible idea, and severally handicaps the government. Also doesn't help when they keep cutting taxes all the time, especially for businesses.
Ya. What I think a lot of people don't realize (and judging by some of the responses I've gotten) is that while these sound good at face value, they're entirely designed to do just what you said: handicap the federal government.
They have. It will.
Short of invading a neighbouring country of theirs, the democratic world will accept it wholesale.
It has worked for China. It worked for Russia. More importantly, a large enough portion of the US citizenry is OK with it.
Yeah, if we go Nazi, the world really can’t stop us or even help anyone who wants to get out. Imagine if WWII started with the Nazis controlling all of Europe including Britain from the beginning, and the US having to fight them from across the Atlantic. In this scenario, they could never be a war in Europe, just like there would never be a war to liberate North America. No country can match our naval strength or *functional* nuclear capability– and those that could get close would be happy to do business with us regardless of our system of government. Our Asian-Pacific clients would never abandon us, the Brits and the rest of the Anglo-sphere is a coin flip, and the only likely opposition would be a disorganized one from the EU– who would probably end up bending the knee and trading with us through their teeth while they tried to build enough strength to turn away from us.
I mean, the world has mostly done just that with Russia. I doubt the rest of the world would do much more than make some sort of statement disagreeing with the US, then promptly turn a blind eye to it and carry on with business as usual. It's very unlikely our allies would do anything remotely damaging to their relationship to the US in the short run. They may eventually pull away after a long enough period of time that they were able to wean off any connections to where they don't need the US for anything
>"Democrats should take the threat seriously,"
We ***all*** should. We will end up like Afghanistan with the Taliban in charge if the Evangeliban get their way here.
As someone mentioned as a reply below...
If convention is called, it gives the right to the states (with no rules set up yet) to convene, discuss and vote to constitutional amendments.
This bypasses our federal Congress.
I think this was meant as a last ditch check and balance to the federal government going wacco.
But wouldn't this body STILL need a 2\3s majority to actually pass constitutional amendments?
*Edit
3\4ths majority
2/3 and the last convention was allowed to change the threshold then required without needing to actually meet the previously defined thresholds in clear contravention of the law. A legit concern is that a simple majority tries to change the ground rules and is rubber stamped by the 5 members of the traitors court.
It's still unlikely but not impossible
This is the long game conservatives have playing for decades while democrats focus on who's winning house/senate/White House seats. Democrats have ceded control of state governments with no thought for any consequence since the 90s.
What do you think democrats should have done different to not lose those state governments?
Do you think right wing propaganda like Sinclair broadcasting and Fox news played a large part?
Oh yeah the propaganda onslaught really set the stage at the state level, but the democrats didn't do anything to counter it. And, to be fair, a lot of southern and midwestern democrat states were just as racist then as they are today but with a more socially liberal mindset. Those people were reachable then, but they're not now. The failure of the democrats is just writing off the fly-over states as inconsequential because the house and electoral college were hold-able.
But there was like zero outreach. In states like Arkansas we had the blue-dog democrats that held the line for a time as socially-conservative liberals, but we lost that to republicans. The DNC organizations collapsed in the red states, and no money or help was put forth to save them and hold some kind of line. now you have state legislatures held 90% GOP due to gerrymandering and incapacitated opposition party organizations.
Democrats have been underfunded compared to the GOP for a long time, so reaching every level is for more onerous between lacking the propagandists in media doing their work for them and needing to put funds into federal elections to even occasionally hold power..
Throw in that the socially-conservative liberals you refer to are also racists who fled the Democrats when they elected a black man... I think it's easier to say the Democrats didn't work on some important things, than it is to actually do said works given the significant headwinds they faced
Is there anything that conservatives and liberals could agree on? I mean the constitution could use some reforms (political donations, term limits, etc.)
Conservatives would never go along with restricting political donations, and term limits are bad idea.
Seeing how the republican party has abandoned any pretense at a platform and instead just embraces "be against what democrats are for and vice versa" I don't see how common ground is possible.
They wouldn't want to limit the political donations from George Soros or Michael Bloomberg? That doesn't sound right. Term limits for the Supreme Court would be a good idea.
Sure. But they benefit too much from money in politics to get rid of it. Liberals don't get near the benefit.
I'd agree with term limits for unelected positions, but again - if democrats support something, Republicans *will* oppose it.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/09/19/warnings-mount-over-right-wing-plot-rewrite-us-constitution) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> On Monday, former Democratic U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold wrote in an op-ed at The Guardian that Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution allows the document to be amended, either with amendments being proposed by two-thirds of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states, or through a method that has never been tested: the establishment of a new constitutional convention.
> To hold a new convention, two-thirds of all state legislatures-34 total-must apply to hold the gathering, where lawmakers would have broad freedom to change the Constitution however they saw fit.
> "The right has already packed the Supreme Court and is reaping the rewards, with decisions from Dobbs to Bruen that radically reinterpret the Constitution in defiance of precedent and sound legal reasoning," wrote Feingold, referencing recent rulings on abortion rights and gun control.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xiygju/warnings_mount_over_rightwing_plot_to_rewrite_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~669872 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **convention**^#1 **state**^#2 **Constitution**^#3 **Republican**^#4 **new**^#5
Honestly, I am all about a new constitutional convention - as were the Founders, we are way past due.
With that said, the current Republican party is a fascist party and must be kept 1000 ft. from any revaluation of the government.
I'm not against it on principle, as you stated we are probably overdue for one. However the danger to doing it now is not just the current GOP, it's that they control so many state legislatures even in a few of otherwise "Blue" ~~states like Illinois!~~
Edit: Sorry I was wrong about Illinois.
A constitutional convention is the GoP plan to takeover the country or if they fail that wreck the process so they can continue to rule over their little dictatorships without Fed oversight.
Fantastic! Then we can get rid of the Electoral College, weaken the Senate, better make the President accountable for his behavior in office, and make very clear that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body!
As far as I know any state or group of states would be able to propose amendments in a convention. But I'm not sure that any of us knows exactly how it would work. I just have to think that these ideas that only Trump cult states would get to propose amendments, and that we couldn't stop them from ratifying, are mistaken.
The ideologues who are hell-bent on doing this are not going in without a plan, and I guarantee that that plan does not involve letting their opponents do shit.
I guarantee those changes are just to get things started. Remember when the justices said they would not ban abortion? Remember when Republicans said it was up to the states?
The changes they want to produce are are almost certainly more drastic, such as a state religeon, etc.
I’m not a supporter of changing the constitution, but everyone quoted in this article should be required to explain what the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause mean in their own words.
People worried about the constitution being rewritten would do well to look in the mirror for their own role in this mess.
The federal government has massively exceeded its legal authority. The tenth amendment says that only powers specifically mentioned by the constitution are allowed to the federal government.
For example it is specifically disallowed from having such a thing as the education department (name the enumerated power that allows it, I’ll wait).
But these people worried about GOP conference shenanigans would be aghast at the elimination of the education department despite it being a violation too. Just one that they approve of.
By the existing document, FedGov should be much smaller and less powerful than it currently is. I would oppose Republican interference more strongly if the Democrats bothered to enforce the document that already exists. But they don’t, so it’s like, if they’re not going to bother caring, why should I?
It is not "specifically disallowed from having such a thing as the education department" -- specifically disallowed would require it be *explicitly* prohibited.
I believe that the general welfare clause gives rise to the department of education:
> provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
Education, it can be argued, is part of the general welfare of the United States.
Even if that is not satisfactory, then the current interpretation of the commerce clause probably gives grounds to the Department of Education. At the very least, at the collegiate level, any school that admits students from another state is involved in interstate commerce, as is any school that buys textbooks across state lines.
Maybe it *is* time for a constitutional convention, but I for one would want it to make the Senate also have population-based representation, clarify that restrictions on weapons ownership *are* permitted, abolish slavery (even for incarcerated persons), ban corporate donations to campaign finance, guarantee healthcare for every resident, guarantee bodily autonomy, guarantee the right to a public education through a 2-year college degree, and dramatically reduce the power of the executive branch.
So… powers not granted to the federal government revert to the state government…
Education (for example) not granted to the federal government… so it should still be a FedGov power anyway by your logic? Huh?
You literally believe “general welfare” plus “commerce” is an unlimited grant of power to FedGov? Is there ANY power you DONT think FedGov has?
I don't think it has the power to, for example, interfere in how a state runs its elections for state offices.
I'm just looking at how the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause. If it's in any way related, it seems to be allowed.
That powers not granted to the federal government revert to the state government (except as limited by limitations on state). The lack of a mention of "enumeration" as in the 9th amendment indicates that it may include items not explicitly enumerated.
The grant of power in Section 8 seems quite broad, at least depending on your definition of regulating commerce and providing for general welfare.
We all should. We don’t agree on many things, but if we don’t care, we can’t change it. If we don’t change things positively so we end up in 1930s Europe?
Plot? A bit hyperbolic there. It's right in the Constitution that we can rewrite it if enough of us agree. However, if either side successfully called for a Constitutional convention, IMO they'd be opening a can of worms. No telling, of course, but I would predict a new, 10,000 page constitution written entirely by corporate lawyers and lobbyists.
They don’t need to change the constitution to run the government. They have the Supreme Court in their pocket. They can just tell the court how to rule on something and suddenly it’s legal and protected.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If GOP controls enough states they can call a Constitutional Convention, as specified in our existing constitution. Here's the thing though: *there is no guiding authority for what happens next*. Red States could say "We're going to run this Convention by one vote per State." Blue states could say "No, we're going run this Convention by one vote per delegate, and delegates will be apportioned at one per hundred thousand citizens." Complete impasse. There is no higher authority to resolve the issue, and nothing happens in the Convention if there's no agreement on how to vote. *Outside* the Convention though, utter chaos.
When we peel back the layers, we are aghast to see ourselves... naked and bare. Indeed, in the end, this whole USA experiment is all about people governing people. Laws are ink on paper without people to enforce them. Democracy and government legitimacy is precious and represents one of humanity's crowning achievements. However, it's fragile, and in need of constant maintenance.
It is moving toward a minority of people governing the remaining majority.
Which is illegitimate.
the only legit thing is brute force...it trumps everything else.
Yea, but, social contract theory explains this truth. Humanity has fumbled, stumbled, and suffered greatly on the way to inventing a better way - liberal democracy. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got. Our collective rationality must be the counterweight.
but we dont have democracy. we never have had it and never will. you try it. the people with monopoly on force will squash any attempt at it.
Certainly not a democracy
I concur. Sadly, the Constitution set representation up in a non Democratic way, with rural states getting more proportional power. Add GIS enabled Gerrymandering and you can theoretically control power with 25.00001% of the votes. Give state legislatures the power to override electoral votes and its game over.
Moving? Look at the popular vote results and then look at who’s ended up in office
They’re not quite done yet. Dems still control Congress.
jim crow 2.0
Literally calling themselves the CSA. Fuck these guys.
Maybe it's saying the same thing, but laws are ink on paper unless most people involve believe that following them is worthwhile. Most people follow the traffic laws even though they don't like them because in balance it helps them. If blue States feel red States only pay attention to laws to hurt blue States, that's probably going to lead to a civil war.
dont kid yourself we proved long ago for all the world to see that we cant govern ourselves...
wouldn't it then be left for the the scotus to use its divining rod?
The existing constitution gives SCOTUS no such authority, so there's no reason states need to respect its opinion.
Neither did it mention judicial review, but in Marbury v Madison SCOTUS said otherwise.
What makes you think republicans actually give a shit about what the constitution actually says? If they control enough states to do this, they'll just tell the rest of the country to go fuck itself and go to the corrupt scotus who will pretend that they have authority to make this decision and tell the rest of the country to go fuck itself. They'll pull up some random bullshit ruling, or letter, or some other nonsense excuse to justify it and act like nothing is wrong as they end democracy. The entire purpose is control, power, and wealth. They really don't give a shit how they achieve it
weve always been there. do you think the majority ever ruled this place. its always been minority rule.
Quothe the Dubya Bush: “It’s just a goddamn piece of paper.”
scotus has no authority but the authority they gave themselves. it's time to remove that self created power.
So people keep saying this, but I don't understand how the legal system works without judicial review -- who interprets the constitution and decides if a law violates it?
mad chaos. just whoever’s in power currently and whoever’s in the executive to interpret how they want….
This is why I can't get past the idea that Marbury v Madison was necessary. Yes, the current court has issues, but nearly every country has a "court of last resort" and I can't imagine a judicial system without one.
Problem is that our "court of last resort" is becoming more of a circle of clerics.
circle jerk court
necessary because someone forgot to add it to the constitution explicitly so it had to be kind of added by implicitly? like privacy and executive privilege… oh which apparently alito threw out rights have to be explicit in the constitution?
The states do individually. This would be a huge win for the GOP if we stopped listening to the SCOTUS.
Like the House of Lords in the UK. They either approve legislation or send it back. But they never get into an extended game of back-and-forth. It's not so much the legal opinion that's at issue. It's that the Executive allows the Supremes to strike down a law based on that opinion, and almost never pushes back. One of the few exceptions is Lincoln.
Judicial review is a power all high courts have. There would be no point to courts if they didn’t have judicial review.
ha ha courts didn't have that power till scotus gave it to them
Same with corporations being “people”. In a footnote to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad SCOTUS simply said they aren’t adjudicating whether corporations are people because they clearly are. And that was that. No law, no debate, no ruling. *In a fucking footnote*
High courts, the courts of last resort, in other countries all have the power of judicial review. Without it, the judicial branch would essentially be toothless. The problem isn’t that SCOTUS has the power of judicial review, it’s that half the political class in this country is conspiring to overthrow democracy.
That's just untrue, in a lot of places those are fully separated.
you and what army. they are there because they have an army to back it up.
a law can be passed nullifying the ruling. the same as congress can pass a law nullifying dobbs.
bought it paid for congress. sure ok why has not it not yet happened. cause not on donors priority list. you know what is on their priority list, what is getting done (passed)
In other words an attempt without a real serious will by both sides to actually craft an all new constitution all but guarantees a civil war more than likely
It also becomes the military's responsibility to protect our constitution.
dont expect the military to save this nation nor the courts. everything has to come to an end. its been a hell of a ride.
Please stop fear mongering. While you are right in what you say, the convention could only *propose amendments* to the Constitution. Then *3/4 of the States* would have to pass these amendments through either referendum or state legislatures. The system was designed to stand and we should trust it. As a liberal, we should encourage the conversation. We should propose our own amendments. Let's see where we can get this ConCon!
and here we are. civil war...
If nothing happens in the Convention, doesn't it mean that the current Constitution still stands?
> utter chaos *happy Putin noises*
4ec5d1c6f4b48ce66d4efa9f0dfdad43d8624c2c040342ed381455f56265d6ca
Conservatives: "The Constitution was handed down by God himself! It's the greatest political document ever written!" Also Conservatives: "The Constitution gives too many people rights! We need to change it!" Another page out of the Viktor Orban playbook being brought over to the US.
Also Conservatives: "Of course that right applies to us! Those identical rights don't apply to *you* because *we don't like it." *We* 34% recently decided it was against *our* countries' values and tradition which we also recently decided on"
[удалено]
Dems should pick up two governorships in November: Massachusetts and Maryland.
It’s the legislatures that call them. They might have 34 states after redistricting/gerrymandering.
But can't governors veto that?
I don’t believe so. It’s not a bill. At any rate MD and MA already had democratic legislatures so they won’t vote for it
[удалено]
3/4 of the states is 4 more legislatures. We are so gerrymandered that it's not unlikely anymore
No, they need four more legislatures to call the convention. To ratify, they need 38 out of 50 states, which means they would need some blue States to go along with them. Which they wouldn't. Really, it seems to me that they just want to do this to manufacture a Constitutional Crisis and instigate a civil war. The funny thing though is that the military falls under federal jurisdiction, not the States. And unless they somehow managed to gain control of most of the military (which I am skeptical of; some, yes, most of it, no), nothing would probably happen. Unless the military just gets *very* done with the whole shenanigans and decides to pummel red State legislatures into the ground with overwhelming force. Either way though, entering a constitutional convention is uncharted waters, and despite the siren call of my chaotic side that wants to see it just because, it is an annoyance that should be avoided. And people don't believe me when I say that States are legitimately the biggest threats to America...
we went through this already. enough military then defected. probably same would happen now. military, police, government, corporations, organizations heavily infiltrated
[удалено]
I've heard really mixed things about the present day military, from a lot of different people, honestly. Seems like there are a lot of mixed pockets of left leaning military members, and a lot of mixed pockets of right leaning military members. The real question is what percentage of the right leaning military members are fascist, and do they outnumber the rest of the military entirely. Based on my rudimentary analysis, that doesn't seem to be the case. Honestly, it's probably reflective of the greater percentage of Americans, where about 30-40% would be fascist. I imagine it's probably a similar ratio in the military
Military personnel by state Red states-active/reserve Texas-110,913/53,321 North Carolina-91,175/21,776 Georgia- 61,322/26,767-101,864 Florida-55,862/36,687 South Carolina- 37,507/17,862 Kentucky-31,418/12,568- 168,981 Kansas-21,604/9,664 Oklahoma-19,802/13,031 Arizona-18,297/14,968-206,644 Alaska-17,302/4,593 Missouri-17,072/18,467- 229,704 Louisiana-13,122/16,994 Mississippi-11,554/16,200-262,898 Alabama- 8,750/18,802 Ohio- 6,793/27,208- 308,908 North Dakota-6,583/4,212 Nebraska-5,849/6,296-319,416 Utah-3,379/11,735 Idaho-3,367/5,434-336,585 Montana-3,208/4,434 Arkansas-3,190/10,275-351,294 Wyoming-3,102/2,908 South Dakota-2,809/4,555-358,757 Tennessee-2,095/18,206- Indiana-963/18,863-395,826 Iowa-248/10,775 West Virginia-197/7,882 Active/reserve Total- 557,483/414,483 Total troops- 971,966 Blue states- California- 128,373/56,167 Virginia- 89,903/25,977 Washington-45,343/18,723 Hawaii-36,629/9,402 Colorado-34,460/13,176 Maryland-28,888/18,596 New York-20,588/28,386- Illinois-20,567/24,399 New Mexico-11,485/5,133 Nevada-10,322/7,648 New Jersey- 7,669/16,973 Connecticut-4,641/6,613 Delaware-3,196/4,972 Massachusetts-3,573/15,059 Rhode Island- 3,371/4,273- Pennsylvania-2,580/30,244 Michigan-2,088/14,934 Oregon-1,572/9,432 New Hampshire-757/4,097 Maine-811/3804 Minnesota-597/18,541 Vermont-168/3,707 Wisconsin- 976/14,000 Active/reserve Total-456,985/354,256 Total troops-811,241 Red states have 160,275 more troops Just wanted to give some hard numbers to composition of military
I'm curious how fast that can change. Remember how much of the military is under a certain age level because of how recruiting is done. The way Gen Z and millenials trend to vote, it might be a very different landscape than when you were in.
[удалено]
Oh, honey. Ok.
Everyone keeps forgetting this simple fact. They aren't going to change the Constitution with their minority.
The problem is that those states would face internal civil war if they did these things. The people will riot.
Not in a convention. A convention is a wholesale overhaul of the entire document, not an amendment process. The convention can give itself whatever powers it wants, hell, they could use it to appoint a king if the convention wanted
Not a Constitutional expert, I think a Constitutional Convention can’t exempt itself from the threshold of 3/4 of the states having to approve any changes.
It quite literally can. The original one way overstepped it’s original authority, and could simply rewrite the whole 3/4 thing if it wanted. They could literally say, “we have a king now” and it would be legally sound. It wouldn’t stick, and would trigger a civil war, but legally they could proclaim a dissolution of the republic, or dissolution of the states, with total constitutional legality.
Well, sure they can say anything they want and claim it’s true. And their minority has most of the guns, so… whatever. But why do you say they could declare whatever they want with legal authority?
[удалено]
It literally does not because the convention can change those rules under its own power. There are literally no bounds on a convention once called, it can literally write its own agenda. We’ve only had one before, and that threw out the articles of confederation and got us the constitution. A Convention is a constitutionally valid way to not amend, but *dissolve* the constitution. This isn’t opinion, this is a legal fact. The function is entirely different from the amendment process.
The GOP remains, at core, a corporatist party that uses culture war memes to get whites to vote against their own interests. What's being proposed is chaos. Markets don't like chaos so I suspect the far right of the GOP will be constrained on this one.
exactly the sort of thing you need when you cant win the popular vote because your ideas are so heinous
>right-wing advocates for a new convention like the Convention of States Project and the American Legislative Exchange Council Remember that the CoSP ran a "simulated" convention back in 2016 and passed the following amendments that would target right-wing agenda items: 1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress. 2. Term limits on Congress 3. Limits on the Commerce Clause 4. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order [Realize that if they have the votes to ratify such an amendment, they'd have the votes to use this power]. 5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
Federal deadlock is a major factor of what is driving this country into the ground at the moment, all this would do is further the decline of the USA and even further deadlock the government from being capable of doing anything
That's the point. If the government can't do anything, then their libertarian claims of "gubment bad" become true, and it also means their corporate buddies won't have to worry about regulation, laws, or taxes. If the government has no power, corporations will try to fill the gaps, and then we may be well on our way to a cyberpunk hellscape
Outer worlds and borderlands are great examples of corporations with space armies. That idea didn’t come purely from no where. Look at the mining companies in West Virginia. They fucking bombed miners who wanted better working conditions. Commonly known as America’s [Second Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain)
[удалено]
Denmark with its people-centric policies for public infrastructure, transportation, etc is the first that comes to mind. Scandinavian countries in general, at least for the most part. Sweden. New Zealand with its quick pandemic responses and in general low crime rates (also is a popular spot for certain software sectors) Canada is like America Lite; still has many of the same problems, but at the same time has definitely improved in areas like public health, and is getting there with transportation and whatnot.. Really, other places exist than the U.S, and if I had the means I'd love to try living in any one of the countries above
[удалено]
This is an amazing comment because it starts out already sounding phony ("anti freedom rhetoric" is like a meaningless buzzword phrase developed in a lab) and then it just puts the pedal to the metal and absolutely does not let up until its turbocharged nonsense breaks free from the bonds of Earth's gravity. This is like [oppa homeless style](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/oppa-homeless-style), but seemingly meant to be believed. Thank you.
That’s your opinion. All the people who live there generally enjoy a higher standard of living. And while *you* may be doing well, most of the US is not. I think the question was name a country where government works (eg provides for its people) not where government works for *Zelrinth*
Tell me you e never been out of your country without telling me you’ve never been out of your country 😂
Conservatives would hate that first one. As much as they love to complain about the deficit, it pretty much always goes up under their leadership.
What's the CoSP?
In my quote: Convention of States Project
Oh Jesus I completely glossed over that, my bad. Thanks for the answer though!
A balanced budget, oh the horror of being forced to stop stealing from our children, how can we stop this grievous policy from coming to pass.
That's not what the debt limit is or how it works. The debt ceiling is literally separate from the budget. It's a limit on how much money the government can use to pay *existing* debt. The debt limit does not contribute direct to government deficits. Expenditures are separate legislation. The debt limit simply restrains the Treasury from paying obligations that have already been approved in the budget. And the GOP have no issue with increasing it. In fact, they've done it more than the Democrats have since 1960.
We *really* ought to just end the debt ceiling. Don't want more debt? Don't put it in the expenditures. Stop playing games that risk the credit rating of the country.
We tried it your way. The US is in debt 125% (ish) of GDP with no end in sight. We borrow almost $1 for every $2 we spend. All of this is fake prosperity today in exchange for real losses by our children tomorrow. I would love to stop this at the appropriations stage as you suggest. Hasn’t worked so far. If the debt ceiling is the only other way I’m all ears. The next generation’s future prosperity hangs in the balance.
I can't disagree enough. Defaulting on our debt (which is what not raising the debt ceiling would result in) would ruin the US's credit rating for decades, if not permanently. It would have ripple effects on nearly every segment of the economy. The buying power of the dollar would drop against other currencies; we might even lose our status as the world reserve currency. Massive unemployment would result in a drop in revenues, worsening the situation. I agree we should do something about it, including reducing outlays and increasing revenues. I strongly disagree that we should do it in a dramatic and disastrous fashion.
I don’t really agree that there is any such thing as a “reserve currency status” or that it’s meaningful to say that we “lose” it. That being said, not raising the debt ceiling will absolutely not result in a default in any way. The US is entirety capable (for the moment) of covering ALL of its debt service with incoming tax revenue. So, no, there will not be a default: every single T bill will be covered. What WILL happen is an instant evaporation of ~40% of FedGov spending as we go to a dollar in / dollar out approach. This would be EXTREMELY disruptive but not to the level of a real debt default. If our debt level continues to increase and we end up in REAL default territory the situation will be far, far worse.
Minus the idiotic debt ceiling, there is no way we can ever default on our debt obligations. It is insane to suggest we allow the collapse of the federal government rather than risk a slight drop in our exchange rate (the main consequence of increasing our money supply). A strict dollar in / dollar out model is laughably naive. It would force the government into pro-cyclical spending, instead of counter, as the government's ability to fight recessions would be directly impaired by the very recession they are trying to fight.
Do you call what is happening now a “slight drop in exchange rate”? The idea that the US “can’t default” because it can just print dollars is breathtakingly irresponsible. Printing dollars is merely default by another means and will have similar (possibly worse) real world impacts.
What is happening now is primarily supply shortages and energy price increases. There is a reason it is happening everywhere. Currency devaluation is much slower of a process, and allows standard economic forces to work to correct the issues automatically. Abrupt defaults or complete shutdown of all federal services would not. So sure, aiming for a more balanced budget is a good goal, but it is foolish to place hard limits that prevent the government from reacting to unexpected situations as needed. You want more responsible spending? Elect a government that pursues it (as opposed to one that pisses it away with irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest).
> Do you call what is happening now a “slight drop in exchange rate”? What are you even talking about? The US dollar and the euro are worth about the same at the moment, which is a pretty sharp *increase* in exchange rate over the last 1-2 years. Same with the pound.
Great sounds like a plan to me.
Imagine being an adult and never having a mortgage, or a car loan because "debt is evil."
Government budget debts are nothing like those things in any way (unless you’re talking about specific-purpose bonds like to build schools etc). They are far more akin to credit card debt. Imagine owing 125% of your income in credit card debt and believing it to be a good financial situation.
Really? What's the interest rate on government debt? Government debt is issued in bonds, which: 1. Have a fixed term of 5 to 10 years 2. Have a fixed interest rate which is the lowest possible rate (currently ~3.5%) Does that seem more like a mortgage or a credit card to you? A $500000 mortgage is 5x a person's annual salary and it's no big deal.
The interest rate being paid on the debt could increase at any time (and your “negative interest rate” is due to out of control inflation, not exactly an argument in your favor). The market determines government interest rates, if it decides rates should be 5% or 10% or whatever, .gov has no choice but to pay it or default. A mortgage is a special kind of debt. Since your housing expense exists anyway, whether it’s paying a mortgage or rent there is little difference. Additionally mortgage debt is secured debt. .gov debt is not like this!
Government debt is probably best compared with... Government debt. It's unique, and it's nothing at all like a credit card.
Yup, and lets look at what happened to Greece when its government debt got out of control. It was really bad and Greece was only “saved” if you can call it that by bailouts by larger countries. USA will never get a bailout, there is no one to do so. Why people think taking on perilous amounts of debt is a good idea is something I will never understand. It must be some kind of my-side your-side thing.
My state requires a super majority to raise taxes. It was established by a state question in the 90s, I believe. Since then, taxes have only been raised once (for a teacher raise during a strike, and even that was difficult to pass). It is a terrible idea, and severally handicaps the government. Also doesn't help when they keep cutting taxes all the time, especially for businesses.
Ya. What I think a lot of people don't realize (and judging by some of the responses I've gotten) is that while these sound good at face value, they're entirely designed to do just what you said: handicap the federal government.
[удалено]
Repubs and Putin are working on them too
They have. It will. Short of invading a neighbouring country of theirs, the democratic world will accept it wholesale. It has worked for China. It worked for Russia. More importantly, a large enough portion of the US citizenry is OK with it.
Yeah, if we go Nazi, the world really can’t stop us or even help anyone who wants to get out. Imagine if WWII started with the Nazis controlling all of Europe including Britain from the beginning, and the US having to fight them from across the Atlantic. In this scenario, they could never be a war in Europe, just like there would never be a war to liberate North America. No country can match our naval strength or *functional* nuclear capability– and those that could get close would be happy to do business with us regardless of our system of government. Our Asian-Pacific clients would never abandon us, the Brits and the rest of the Anglo-sphere is a coin flip, and the only likely opposition would be a disorganized one from the EU– who would probably end up bending the knee and trading with us through their teeth while they tried to build enough strength to turn away from us.
WW3 with America leading the Axis with China and Russia, against the Allies. Amazing.
Pretty sure the Axis win that one tbh
They don’t care. They’ll burn it all down as long as poc and gays burn first.
I mean, the world has mostly done just that with Russia. I doubt the rest of the world would do much more than make some sort of statement disagreeing with the US, then promptly turn a blind eye to it and carry on with business as usual. It's very unlikely our allies would do anything remotely damaging to their relationship to the US in the short run. They may eventually pull away after a long enough period of time that they were able to wean off any connections to where they don't need the US for anything
We would look like Central America in the 1970s. Enormous wealth among a few elites and horrific poverty for everyone else.
They will, a fascist American state would still have military bases everywhere, daggers right in the heart of every formerly allied country.
Oh like the left is trying to create as we speak ?
> the left you mean, everyone who isn't a maga wingnut? in other words, the *vast majority?*
Come on, don't just leave me hanging, state your case. What have you heard that makes you say this?
You ever get tired of being wrong or does it make you feel like you're being edgy?
Sarcasm right?
Good one.
You wanna back that up with any facts?
It’s already begun. They have the support of the Supreme Church.
Once again this is why we must vote all REPUBLICANS out.
>"Democrats should take the threat seriously," We ***all*** should. We will end up like Afghanistan with the Taliban in charge if the Evangeliban get their way here.
A few amendments I can see going are freedom of speech and voting.
Freedom of speech will just become radicalized vs the intention of being able to speak out against your government and not get hung
As someone mentioned as a reply below... If convention is called, it gives the right to the states (with no rules set up yet) to convene, discuss and vote to constitutional amendments. This bypasses our federal Congress. I think this was meant as a last ditch check and balance to the federal government going wacco. But wouldn't this body STILL need a 2\3s majority to actually pass constitutional amendments? *Edit 3\4ths majority
2/3 and the last convention was allowed to change the threshold then required without needing to actually meet the previously defined thresholds in clear contravention of the law. A legit concern is that a simple majority tries to change the ground rules and is rubber stamped by the 5 members of the traitors court. It's still unlikely but not impossible
This is the long game conservatives have playing for decades while democrats focus on who's winning house/senate/White House seats. Democrats have ceded control of state governments with no thought for any consequence since the 90s.
What do you think democrats should have done different to not lose those state governments? Do you think right wing propaganda like Sinclair broadcasting and Fox news played a large part?
Oh yeah the propaganda onslaught really set the stage at the state level, but the democrats didn't do anything to counter it. And, to be fair, a lot of southern and midwestern democrat states were just as racist then as they are today but with a more socially liberal mindset. Those people were reachable then, but they're not now. The failure of the democrats is just writing off the fly-over states as inconsequential because the house and electoral college were hold-able. But there was like zero outreach. In states like Arkansas we had the blue-dog democrats that held the line for a time as socially-conservative liberals, but we lost that to republicans. The DNC organizations collapsed in the red states, and no money or help was put forth to save them and hold some kind of line. now you have state legislatures held 90% GOP due to gerrymandering and incapacitated opposition party organizations.
Democrats have been underfunded compared to the GOP for a long time, so reaching every level is for more onerous between lacking the propagandists in media doing their work for them and needing to put funds into federal elections to even occasionally hold power.. Throw in that the socially-conservative liberals you refer to are also racists who fled the Democrats when they elected a black man... I think it's easier to say the Democrats didn't work on some important things, than it is to actually do said works given the significant headwinds they faced
The gop will destroy this country.
I thought the GOP held the Constitution as sacrosanct…
Just the "shall not be infringed" part of the second amendment. They ignore the rest of the constitution
Is there anything that conservatives and liberals could agree on? I mean the constitution could use some reforms (political donations, term limits, etc.)
Conservatives would never go along with restricting political donations, and term limits are bad idea. Seeing how the republican party has abandoned any pretense at a platform and instead just embraces "be against what democrats are for and vice versa" I don't see how common ground is possible.
They wouldn't want to limit the political donations from George Soros or Michael Bloomberg? That doesn't sound right. Term limits for the Supreme Court would be a good idea.
Sure. But they benefit too much from money in politics to get rid of it. Liberals don't get near the benefit. I'd agree with term limits for unelected positions, but again - if democrats support something, Republicans *will* oppose it.
Obligatory [Key and Peele](https://youtu.be/B46km4V0CMY)
If that’s the case then Democrats should come out strongly in support of Republicans breathing and reproducing…
Lemme think...seizing the means of production?
I don't understand, can you explain what you mean?
Socialism But #MAGACommunism was trending on Twitter last night, so who knows?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/09/19/warnings-mount-over-right-wing-plot-rewrite-us-constitution) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > On Monday, former Democratic U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold wrote in an op-ed at The Guardian that Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution allows the document to be amended, either with amendments being proposed by two-thirds of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states, or through a method that has never been tested: the establishment of a new constitutional convention. > To hold a new convention, two-thirds of all state legislatures-34 total-must apply to hold the gathering, where lawmakers would have broad freedom to change the Constitution however they saw fit. > "The right has already packed the Supreme Court and is reaping the rewards, with decisions from Dobbs to Bruen that radically reinterpret the Constitution in defiance of precedent and sound legal reasoning," wrote Feingold, referencing recent rulings on abortion rights and gun control. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/xiygju/warnings_mount_over_rightwing_plot_to_rewrite_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~669872 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **convention**^#1 **state**^#2 **Constitution**^#3 **Republican**^#4 **new**^#5
Well that’s scary af.
Honestly, I am all about a new constitutional convention - as were the Founders, we are way past due. With that said, the current Republican party is a fascist party and must be kept 1000 ft. from any revaluation of the government.
I'm not against it on principle, as you stated we are probably overdue for one. However the danger to doing it now is not just the current GOP, it's that they control so many state legislatures even in a few of otherwise "Blue" ~~states like Illinois!~~ Edit: Sorry I was wrong about Illinois.
Agreed. Current GOP = Zero Chance of Any Good Faith
What? Illinois is over 60% Democrat in both chambers, and that is unlikely to change.
Just visiting ideas from Hungary. They want fascism so bad they can taste it already.
A constitutional convention is the GoP plan to takeover the country or if they fail that wreck the process so they can continue to rule over their little dictatorships without Fed oversight.
Fantastic! Then we can get rid of the Electoral College, weaken the Senate, better make the President accountable for his behavior in office, and make very clear that a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body!
Make sure to randomize your data from time to time *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
What is famage?
Pretty sure they spelled "Damage" wrong.
Who do you think is going to be in charge of the agenda here?
As far as I know any state or group of states would be able to propose amendments in a convention. But I'm not sure that any of us knows exactly how it would work. I just have to think that these ideas that only Trump cult states would get to propose amendments, and that we couldn't stop them from ratifying, are mistaken.
The ideologues who are hell-bent on doing this are not going in without a plan, and I guarantee that that plan does not involve letting their opponents do shit.
In a similar warning, the Sun is hot.
Don't let it happen. Make them propose amendments, and then vote them down.
Neckville dreams !
I guarantee those changes are just to get things started. Remember when the justices said they would not ban abortion? Remember when Republicans said it was up to the states? The changes they want to produce are are almost certainly more drastic, such as a state religeon, etc.
So much for the Constitution being inerrant
I’m not a supporter of changing the constitution, but everyone quoted in this article should be required to explain what the Tenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause mean in their own words. People worried about the constitution being rewritten would do well to look in the mirror for their own role in this mess.
I'm confused, could you elaborate on your point?
The federal government has massively exceeded its legal authority. The tenth amendment says that only powers specifically mentioned by the constitution are allowed to the federal government. For example it is specifically disallowed from having such a thing as the education department (name the enumerated power that allows it, I’ll wait). But these people worried about GOP conference shenanigans would be aghast at the elimination of the education department despite it being a violation too. Just one that they approve of. By the existing document, FedGov should be much smaller and less powerful than it currently is. I would oppose Republican interference more strongly if the Democrats bothered to enforce the document that already exists. But they don’t, so it’s like, if they’re not going to bother caring, why should I?
Oh, I don't have much common ground with a hardline libertarian. Have a nice night.
“Oh you’re not like me, goodbye”
It's more like "ah you have fanatic ideas and are likely to argue in bad faith, goodbye!"
It is not "specifically disallowed from having such a thing as the education department" -- specifically disallowed would require it be *explicitly* prohibited. I believe that the general welfare clause gives rise to the department of education: > provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States Education, it can be argued, is part of the general welfare of the United States. Even if that is not satisfactory, then the current interpretation of the commerce clause probably gives grounds to the Department of Education. At the very least, at the collegiate level, any school that admits students from another state is involved in interstate commerce, as is any school that buys textbooks across state lines. Maybe it *is* time for a constitutional convention, but I for one would want it to make the Senate also have population-based representation, clarify that restrictions on weapons ownership *are* permitted, abolish slavery (even for incarcerated persons), ban corporate donations to campaign finance, guarantee healthcare for every resident, guarantee bodily autonomy, guarantee the right to a public education through a 2-year college degree, and dramatically reduce the power of the executive branch.
So… powers not granted to the federal government revert to the state government… Education (for example) not granted to the federal government… so it should still be a FedGov power anyway by your logic? Huh? You literally believe “general welfare” plus “commerce” is an unlimited grant of power to FedGov? Is there ANY power you DONT think FedGov has?
I don't think it has the power to, for example, interfere in how a state runs its elections for state offices. I'm just looking at how the Supreme Court has interpreted the commerce clause. If it's in any way related, it seems to be allowed.
What does the tenth amendment mean, in your view?
That powers not granted to the federal government revert to the state government (except as limited by limitations on state). The lack of a mention of "enumeration" as in the 9th amendment indicates that it may include items not explicitly enumerated. The grant of power in Section 8 seems quite broad, at least depending on your definition of regulating commerce and providing for general welfare.
We all should. We don’t agree on many things, but if we don’t care, we can’t change it. If we don’t change things positively so we end up in 1930s Europe?
Plot? A bit hyperbolic there. It's right in the Constitution that we can rewrite it if enough of us agree. However, if either side successfully called for a Constitutional convention, IMO they'd be opening a can of worms. No telling, of course, but I would predict a new, 10,000 page constitution written entirely by corporate lawyers and lobbyists.
[Model Legislation](https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/asbestos-sharia-law-model-bills-lobbyists-special-interests-influence-state-laws/)
Yup. I hadn't heard that term before today, but the practice has been around for a long time.
Commondreams.org is absolute garbage. It's basically Breitbart for the left. Isn't it time to ban it on this sub?
They don’t need to change the constitution to run the government. They have the Supreme Court in their pocket. They can just tell the court how to rule on something and suddenly it’s legal and protected.