I read somewhere that ours is currently the oldest such document still operating? If so - why not write a new one? I know the process would be drama but still....
But I guess the amendment process is supposed to cover this concern. So maybe not.
6. "Right, so the same people responsible for the laws now will" In response to Reply # 3
write it. So why would we expect them not to maintain the status quo?
Again, a constitutional convention where regular non-career politicians got to play as much a role as lobbyist and career pols, that's something I could get behind.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
25. "so you want ppl like Trump to write it not ppl like Bernie?" In response to Reply # 6
Good luck with that, fella.
If Trump's presidency does anything good I hope it kills the notion that political novices should be running our government. Clearly the shit is hard and requires study and experience. Or 'career' politicians. Our distaste for them is absurd. Without them we have chaos. No institutional memory. Things move slowly or not at all bc ppl are constantly learning how they work or why. Ain't nobody got time for that.
8. "Two-thirds of states needed to ratify. Just like amendments" In response to Reply # 4 Mon Sep-18-17 01:48 PM by PimpTrickGangstaClik
Get the initial constitution together was a clusterfuck, and they needed groups to get on board.
I can't even imagine another amendment ever going through. Let alone a whole new constitution. Only if something catastrophic occurs and our government crumbles
10. "RE: writing a new one sounds like a clusterfuck" In response to Reply # 2
I would be afraid of the compromises that would be made. Many of our forefathers were down with taking down slavery at the beginning but they couldn't get enough votes. These hardliner conservatives would try to pull back civil rights all the damn way.
My life is lived through words and how I mold them into poetry- Jorge Luis Borges
26. "republicans are close to being able to calling a constitutional conventi..." In response to Reply # 5
I believe the GOP just needs to win a few more state governments.
i'd be very afraid.
. http://perspectivesudans.blogspot.com/ i myself would never want to be god,or even like god.Because god got all these human beings on this planet and i most certainly would not want to be responsible for them, or even have the disgrace that i made them.
12. "ideally...yes. given context...no." In response to Reply # 0
an amendment to the constitution would be needed to overturn citizens united and help get dark money out of politics.
but republicans completely control 26 states (legislature + governor)...and 32 state legislatures alone.
and these arent moderate republican legislators. these are people put in place and funded by the koch brothers and alec.
these are the same state legislatures right now who have pushed voting restrictions, anti-worker/union laws, repeals of consumer and environmental protections, weakening of transparency and ethics laws, weakening of civil rights protections for women and minorities, defunding of arts/education/safety net programs, minimum wage rollbacks, anti-protest measures, etc.
no doubt they would just take advantage of the opportunity to further entrench their power and turn this country into a complete oligarchy.
13. "Thing is, How the hell do you get money out of politics?" In response to Reply # 0
Citizen's United is some hard shit to figure out.
If I want to make a documentary trashing Trump, should the government have the ability to stop me because it will harm him and help his opponent in an election year? Seems to be no way to square that with the first amendment.
I come to think you can't get money out of politics if people have the money and the way to fix it is you need to fix the system so that people aren't so rich that they can buy politicians and elections. That has a clearer solution (ie, tax the shit out of them).
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
14. "that could be addressed in the new Constitution. lol" In response to Reply # 13
simple fix - public financing for elections (federal ones, anyway).
it happens in many other countries.
also - write into the new Constitution that campaign donations are NOT speech or not protected speech. place limits on contributions. outlaw superPACs. etc etc.
this could be hashed out at the convention. that's part of the point.
the new Constitution wouldn't just be some thing written by Congress and signed by POTUS. it's a whole process we have never witnessed b/c there has only ever been ONE federal Constitutional Convention in the USA...way back in the late 1700s.
27. "Yeah, your proposals don't fix the current problem though. " In response to Reply # 14
I love the puyblic finance idea but The Koch Brothers and Sheldon Anderson own politicians not because they are giving money to the candidates (the amount you can give to a candidate or their campaign is already limited).
Instead they are spending money with PACs and institutions that support certain candidates and agendas (e.g., anti-climate change) in a manner that is uncoordinated with any campaign (once you coordinate with a campaign, you are making a contribution to their campaign).
That's what makes the issue so difficult, because if you create a law that limits the amount of money you can spend to support a candidate (uncoordinated), well how do you keep such a law from being used to not only go after Fox News, But Comedy Central, or Saturday Night Live, or Michael Moore or Jemele Hill?
>simple fix - public financing for elections (federal ones, >anyway). > >it happens in many other countries. > >also - write into the new Constitution that campaign donations >are NOT speech or not protected speech. place limits on >contributions. outlaw superPACs. etc etc. > >this could be hashed out at the convention. that's part of >the point. > >the new Constitution wouldn't just be some thing written by >Congress and signed by POTUS. it's a whole process we have >never witnessed b/c there has only ever been ONE federal >Constitutional Convention in the USA...way back in the late >1700s.
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
16. "Speech is limited in other dimensions, why not this?" In response to Reply # 13
You can't pass out campaign materials or electioneer near polling places. That can be argued as a limitation of free speech. But it has held up.
>Citizen's United is some hard shit to figure out. > >If I want to make a documentary trashing Trump, should the >government have the ability to stop me because it will harm >him and help his opponent in an election year? Seems to be no >way to square that with the first amendment. > >I come to think you can't get money out of politics if people >have the money and the way to fix it is you need to fix the >system so that people aren't so rich that they can buy >politicians and elections. That has a clearer solution (ie, >tax the shit out of them). > >
19. "Hmmm Interesting analogy." In response to Reply # 16 Tue Sep-19-17 07:49 AM by denny
A couple things...
1. The parties who's 1st amdendment rights are limited by what you describe are voluntarily participating in an election process. So rules in that election process don't count against people who HAVENT signed up. An individual without official ties to a political party is still allowed to distribute pamphlets during polling. So the rule you're citing only applies to those that voluntarily signed up for the process....not the general public.
2. The application of the rule you cited is limited by region and time. So the spirit of the first amendment can remain intact with the understanding that this particular limitation is contextual. It's limited to time and place.
Both of those factors wouldn't apply to banning political contributions and funding across the board.
28. "The problem is no one wants a law that limits speech like this. " In response to Reply # 16
Do you really want a law that stops Michael Moore from making a documentary about Trump? Couldn't the same law be used to go after not only Fox News, But Comedy Central, or Saturday Night Live, or Michael Moore or Jemele Hill?
>You can't pass out campaign materials or electioneer near >polling places. That can be argued as a limitation of free >speech. But it has held up. > > > >>Citizen's United is some hard shit to figure out. >> >>If I want to make a documentary trashing Trump, should the >>government have the ability to stop me because it will harm >>him and help his opponent in an election year? Seems to be >no >>way to square that with the first amendment. >> >>I come to think you can't get money out of politics if >people >>have the money and the way to fix it is you need to fix the >>system so that people aren't so rich that they can buy >>politicians and elections. That has a clearer solution (ie, >>tax the shit out of them). >> >> > >
********** "Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
17. "Been saying this since I logged on" In response to Reply # 0
It would probably take two years. Not sure what the interim would look like but I do think it is needed within the next 10 years. But I also think we are big and that would make an agreement very difficult. Shit how long did it take for 13 states all with the total population of Iowa?
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃ Big PEMFin H & z's "I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles
"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."
18. "No, we just need to split into like 4 or 5 seperate nation..." In response to Reply # 0
Or take another look at confederacy....as in the Articles of Confederation (not the slavery one). With things like the European and African Unions in existence, and you know...basic human rights standatds it might be feasible to rethink how a looser association could work.
20. "only if you want to be finally rid of white supremacy" In response to Reply # 0
__________________________________________ CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!! ------------------------------------ Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this
legsdiamond Member since May 05th 2011 79574 posts
Tue Sep-19-17 08:05 PM
24. "I'm scared of what the new Constitution would look like" In response to Reply # 20
All types of fine print and shit.
**************** TBH the fact that you're even a mod here fits squarely within Jag's narrative of OK-sanctioned aggression, bullying, and toxicity. *shrug*
30. "It would be a total mess if we left it up to whose in power now" In response to Reply # 24
because it would basically be a double down, more than likely.
__________________________________________ CHOP-THESE-BITCHES!!!! ------------------------------------ Garhart Ivanhoe Poppwell Un-OK'd moderator for The Lesson and Make The Music (yes, I do's work up in here, and in your asscrease if you run foul of this
22. "I'd lean toward the amendment process" In response to Reply # 0
The question would be: what are the fundamental vices/flaws of the system necessitating an entirely new document, rather than amending the established document?
because if we think amendments are hard to work through, imagine trying to establish a new document for a nation this large and diverse? but people in 1787 thought the u.s. of THAT time was too big and diverse for republican government.
I can't think of what those flaws would be that would lead me to believe that a new document would be the better option of the two. that said, i'm open to persuasion.
however....The Consitution does need to have that cloud of infallibility removed from it.
The Constitution should be amended way more than it has been thus far. A lot of the problem we're seeing right now are the culmination of laws not being refined for the present day. As a result, these amendments are at the mercy of our judicial system's interpretation. ---------------------------------------
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
