hacker

No I do not. In fact, if they were so unable to change, how could we have a constitutional convention that completely bypasses Congressional approval?

And what is the likelihood of said convention ever occurring?
What indeed is the chance that any constitutional amendment could pass today?
The notion that there is a theoretical way to make changes does not support the idea that change is actually possible when the theoretical method has never been used and has no chance of ever being employed.

rickyp

Aren't the citizens in DC and the territories in the same boat

?

hacker

No, they're not.

Really? How are the citizens of DC represented in their government? In what way so they have any power in the writing of laws or regulation. especially taxation?

hacker

Dick Lamm is also entitled to his opinions, which I find pretty daft. Wyoming gets the same 2 votes in the Senate as California--fact. But then again, Colorado has a population smaller than Maryland's and has one less congressman than we do. He should be supporting the Senate instead of lambasting it

Dick Lamm is arguing that the Senate is an inflexible undemocratic system. Your rejoinder is that, because he is from Colorado it benefits him and he should support it.
You see, its that kind of response that demonstrates you don't get the central problem.
Once a political system fails to be responsive to the citizens it decays. With the Senate structure and rules like the super majority the Senate does not have to respond to the citizens of California equally to the citizens of Colorado. Lamm recognizes that as a structural problem.
You only see the advantage it gives to citizens of Colorado.

Hacker

And in 1787, modern parliamentary democracy, as it existed in 1900 or today, did not yet exist. What an idiot

.
Why does this make him an idiot? Fallows builds upon Lamms observation that the Senate structure has been maintained without regard to demo-graphical or geographical changes, and that it has exponentially magnified a non democratic representation of citizens.
The fact an original structure has not changed despite dozens of examples of more flexible and democratic models doesn't make him an idiot for pointing it out.
The fact that nothing substantial has ever been attempted to repair the original error, because those who are advantaged by the error resist any change... is an example of inflexibility and resistance to improvements that could make the system more responsive to more people.

As for DC, I have talked to some people who live in our nation's capital. And it's treated a lot better than they bitch and moan about. In fact it is treated better than some other countries with some sort of capital that is a special district as far as representation, especially federal systems. In the 1970s, DC was granted full "home role" for its mayor and city council. Congress "technically" has a veto over DC city legislation, but ONLY in certain subject matters (like defense or something). Also, their delegate--and the other 5 non-voting delegates inc. PR's "resident commissioner" as that delegate is styled--can speak on the floor of the House and even though they cannot vote on the floor, they CAN vote in COMMITTEE---in some ways that's a more important privilege. Remember, I said that American Samao had a referendum on whether to request statehood, and the Samoans themselves voted it down. now why on Earth would they do that if they were somehow being mistreated? They get to elect their own governor, he is not appointed by the President of the United States. I looked up the committee assignments of the 6 delegates, including Mrs. Norton of DC, and most, including her, are on some fairly important committees, typically 2 or 3 of them, which looks to be average for most members of the House.

And I'm sorry but if you elect a man for mayor after coming out of jail on charges of crack dealing---twice---I'm not sure you deserve the right to vote. (OK, I don't mean that literally....)

Dick Lamm is arguing that the Senate is an inflexible undemocratic system. Your rejoinder is that, because he is from Colorado it benefits him and he should support it.
You see, its that kind of response that demonstrates you don't get the central problem.

Nor do you get my argument. Dick Lam is right: it's undemocratic. But as I said before, "pure democracy" is in itself undemocratic, ironically. The Greeks had pure democracy (except for women and slaves) for all citizens of Athens (and certain other cities). But there was no court of appeal: democratically-made decisions of the community were binding and there were no limits on the Athenian government such as an upper (undemocratic) house for example. In federal states, power is more diffuse. And many more democracies than the United States have anti-democratic features built in which, strangely enough, benefit and protect the people. Even popular power must have its checks against it to safeguard liberty. I hope you realize that.

Lamm's comments: I am only saying that it is slightly unusual for a citizen of a state that was meant to benefit from the existence of the Senate, and its manner of apportionment (2 senators per state, regardless of population) to decry it as he did. He's bitching about Wyoming is too small to be worthy of legislative equality with California. Why would he do that when his state has only 7 congressman in the House (less than about twenty other states of the Union, and exactly the same as two others)? That doesn't sound daft to you? Or the pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps I should say that to abolish the Senate would not be in Colorado's interests to do so. Or in the interests of the most of the states, in fact, considering the burgeoning anomaly that is the State of California (53 congressmen, versus Colorado's 7). Half of the states have the same number (or less) congressmen as Colorado. Verdict: the Senate is still a pretty good idea, and Lamm is being silly, especially when he says we "chose the wrong form of government" when the one he seems to prefer did not exist at the time we made the choice. It gives an advantage to a lot more states than CO, buddy. In fact, to most of them it is advantageous. Certainly someone who was elected governor of a particular state ought to have that state's interests in mind. My point in criticizing this comment of his, is to point out that his belief doesn't have CO's best interests in mind ,where it comes to its federal representation.

Now if he was bitching about parliamentary procedure in Congress, OK. But we had a discussion about this, Ricky: parliamentary procedure of the House or the Senate does not require a constitutional convention to amend. Remember?

Once a political system fails to be responsive to the citizens it decays. With the Senate structure and rules like the super majority the Senate does not have to respond to the citizens of California equally to the citizens of Colorado.

I agree once it fails to be responsive to the citziens. But how do you know it has? Because a former Governor of CO says it has? Who, by the way, does not seem to be very perceptive himself!??? Again, just because we don't do it like Canada does, we're automatically doing it wrong.

Ricky, are you saying the amendment process causes the government to be less flexible and responsive, because it is too difficult to amend it in the first place? Is that what you have been trying to say?

And we've fixed PLENTY to make the government more responsive. In 1803 an amendment was proposed (ratified 1804) almost entirely overhauling the electoral college---immediately after the exact election (1800, Jefferson & Burr tied) in which the original design proved disastrous. It took a while to fix slavery, yes. But nonetheless, we did. The Bill of Rights was added more or less immediately, that was 10 (12 were proposed) amendments, in almost exactly 6 months after Congress first sat down to do business. Senators were directly elected by amendment proposed in 1912, ratified the following year. We got women's suffrage in #19: proposed 1919, and ratified 1920 (that was about the same time Canada gave women the right to vote, wasn't it? or within a few years...I thought it was 1912 in Canada or something....?) And #18, the stupidest one (prohibition) was repealed by Amendment #21 just over a decade after 18's ratification (in 1919, #21 ratified by the states in 1933). Not before Al Capone and his kind did their dirty work but nonetheless, fairly quickly once society realized what was happening (the entire United States was not like Chicago by the way. My grandmother was a bootlegger: Baltimore was very "quiet" during prohibition).

Not all the amendments came as quickly as you'd think we'd need them, but certainly once people realized the need for them was dire. Actually, a few of the amendments deal with problems we haven't even experienced yet or aren't too dire (like Sec. 2 of Amendment 25 wasn't a very critical thing, but it did catapult Gerry Ford into the White House of course).

Do you see what I am trying to say? The government has been more responsive than you think as far as its institutions. It's still got quite a few flaws in it, but they can be cured, and there can be a national convention and probably will be soon. I think a couple states have withdrawn their requests for a convention, but others have added in the mean time. I'm not sure what the present count is so far, but remember, it requires 34.

Now are there any particular amendments you would have in mind?

One thing tho: Please stop saying I "don't get it". I get your point. I just do not agree with your point. Nor Governor Lamm's. Does that make me stupid, or naive? No but I'm totally missing the big picture. OK,....whatever. I am not interested in your estimate of my intelligence or perceptiveness Ricky, but it's poor form to say so.

also

And what is the likelihood of said convention ever occurring?

It happens when 34 states say it happens. Last I heard we were close, but again, I do not remember the exact number.

Did I hit all your points or did I miss anything?

hacker

It happens when 34 states say it happens. Last I heard we were close, but again, I do not remember the exact number

Is this the one?

As of 2015, there is an active nationwide effort to call an Article V Convention. Citizens for Self-Governance, through a project called Convention of the States, is promoting Article V legislation in all 50 states in a bid to rein in the federal government.[6] In March 2014, Georgia became the first state to pass the group's Convention of States application.[7] Alaska and Florida followed suit in April 2014.[8][9][10][11][12] Similarly, the group Wolf-PAC chose this method to promote its cause, which is to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. Their resolution passed first in Vermont[13] in May 2014 and a month later in California. On December 3, 2014 Illinois became the third state to pass this resolution;[14] and on February 23rd, 2015 New Jersey became the fourth.[15]

These are the two I've heard about. One has 3 states. (Citizens for self governance is a libertarian off shoot of the Tea Party. ). The other has 4.
Don't get me wrong. I think the second group has a good idea.... It just isn't as progressed as you seem to think.
There's a reason there hasn't been a federal convention in 277 years.

hacker

As for DC, I have talked to some people who live in our nation's capital. And it's treated a lot better than they bitch and moan about. In fact it is treated better than some other countries with some sort of capital that is a special district as far as representation, especially federal systems.

So its okay that they haven't got the same representation as other US citizens? And they should accept their status gladly? I'm asking because thats what you seem to be saying.
This is an inequity that hasn't been fixed since the founding of the US , despite massive popular support for the idea.
If this can't be fixed, more meaty issues have no chance.
By the way:

Advocates of voting representation for the District of Columbia argue that as citizens living in the United States, the more than 600,000 residents of Washington, D.C., should have the same right to determine how they are governed as citizens of a state. At least as early as 1776, George Mason wrote in the Virginia Declaration of Rights:

VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly, ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent, or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.

VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights, and ought not to be exercised.[10]

Justice Hugo Black described the right to vote as fundamental in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964). He wrote, "No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined."[11]

The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens to vote absentee for their home state's Congressional representatives from anywhere else in the world. If a U.S. citizen were to move to the District, that person would lose the ability to vote for a member of the Congress. U.S. citizens who have permanently left the United States are still permitted to vote absentee for the Congress in the state where they last held residency. Scholars have argued that if U.S. citizens who are residents of other countries are allowed to vote in federal elections, then the Congress can extend the same rights to residents of the nation's capital.[11

hacker

And we've fixed PLENTY to make the government more responsive

did you notice the dates on the items you quoted.

hacker

Do you see what I am trying to say? The government has been more responsive than you think as far as its institutions. It's still got quite a few flaws in it, but they can be cured, and there can be a national convention and probably will be soon

.

Uh huh.

Actually I wanted to ask you guys a quick question: how do you upload an image to a Redscape post? Regarding the DC issue, there is something priceless you need to see.

Also, Ricky: read the three articles I posted at the first post of this thread. It was dated 2014 and it questioned whether Michigan had just become the "trigger" for the national convention (but it hangs in doubt, as a few states whose legislatures passed the resolutions have since withdrawn their requests. But it sounds to me like quite a few state legislatures have already sent in their notice.

JimHackerMP wrote:Ok admittedly I cannot tell you more than those two specifically, but the complaints seem to abound in the last few appointments to the SC.

Yes, but is it just complaints, or is it evidenced. Democrats have a reason to complain about Republican-backed nominees and vice versa. But is that a reflection of actual ideological verisimilitude, or just partisan politics as usual?

hacker

Also, Ricky: read the three articles I posted at the first post of this thread.

Done. It appears Wikipedia isn't a totally reliable source.
So this is a convention on a single codified amendment, a balanced budget amendment, no and not a convention to consider general amendment ideas.
Which would be a disastrous amendment, in time of war or in a period like the 08 crash where only huge deficits managed to fairly quickly, considering the depth of the crash, repair the economy.
Great idea.

I note that this all depends upon John Boehner's acceptance of the request as genuine from those who states who adherents say have passed a request ...
Quite a lot of power in his hands.

No, this is a convention that will have the authority to propose any amendment it wants. And Congress does not have to approve these proposals. When it adjourns, the convention's work is submitted directly to the 50 state legislatures for approval/rejection. 38 state legislatures (or elected state conventions) must approve them, as usual, for the amendments to legally become parts of the constitution.

Another blank in the Constitution is that they didn't specify HOW the national convention to propose amendments is to be appointed/elected, etc. I imagine, however, that it will be a highly charged issue in Congress. It does say that they apply to Congress to hold the convention. I do not know this for a fact but I do not think Congress could REFUSE the request. If they did, they'd be in a shitload of trouble, I would imagine, in the very least. Say what you will about congressional campaign donations, to "veto" the request for the national convention would be...politically difficult; if that is precisely what you are thinking.

Yes, but is it just complaints, or is it evidenced. Democrats have a reason to complain about Republican-backed nominees and vice versa. But is that a reflection of actual ideological verisimilitude, or just partisan politics as usual?

Danivon, I've heard it from more than reasonably-well-informed people. I cannot statistically prove it, but there's apparently some reasoning behind it. This seems like more than partisan politics as usual. Even if it is partisan politics at work, that in itself is troubling. I am told by those more informed than myself on these matters that there used to be a lot more crossing of the aisle on Supreme Court appointments. Again, remember that discussion in which Sass insisted that sort of thing was simply "hyper-partisanship" whereas I spoke of "polarization".

DC: my idea would be to give the DC delegate actual status as a "congresswoman"; to vote on the floor not only in committee. But remember, that there is a reason that DC cannot be a "state" per se. The authors of the constitution wanted the federal capital territory out of the hands of any one particular state: even if that territory was a state itself.

Here's an idea: since DC residents are so gung-ho about "taxation without representation", perhaps they would be keen to hold a referendum giving them a choice. a) give the full statehood; b) make them "tax free" but not full statehood. In my opinion, the "statehood" is largely symbolic, as DC residents get most if not all the privileges any citizen of a state enjoys. Certainly tax-free status is a privilege they'd be getting that no one else in America gets; so why should they be dissatisfied with that?

JimHackerMP wrote:No, this is a convention that will have the authority to propose any amendment it wants.

So, do we know which states have asked for that (as opposed to the 30 or so that specifically asked for a convention on a balanced budget?)?

Where could be found a list of them, and how they asked for it?

Yes, but is it just complaints, or is it evidenced. Democrats have a reason to complain about Republican-backed nominees and vice versa. But is that a reflection of actual ideological verisimilitude, or just partisan politics as usual?

Danivon, I've heard it from more than reasonably-well-informed people. I cannot statistically prove it, but there's apparently some reasoning behind it. This seems like more than partisan politics as usual. Even if it is partisan politics at work, that in itself is troubling. I am told by those more informed than myself on these matters that there used to be a lot more crossing of the aisle on Supreme Court appointments. Again, remember that discussion in which Sass insisted that sort of thing was simply "hyper-partisanship" whereas I spoke of "polarization".

All I was asking for was examples of which ones we are talking about. And in what way. Referring me to vague comments by people I know nothing about other than a vague claim to their authority does not tell me much.

Assume (because it's pretty much the case) that I don't really pay a lot of attention to USSC judgements for most cases, or who appointed who or whatever. I know some of their names, and I know my Alito from my RBG, but in all your words describing the problem and your solution, I am no wiser to the former. Only that people have opinions that you think are more than just the polarised political culture would suggest people would hold anyway.

Very well, Danivon have it your way: but I cannot give you what you want . It's one of those things that's pretty difficult to describe and I'm sure there are those on Redscape who could better elaborate on this matter. I know you like hard evidence (and sometimes even that doesn't work) but I cannot give you that. I know however that it's true and a lot of American complain about it. I admit that I cannot show you polls, hard evidence, or which justices in particular. But don't forget there's more than the Supreme Court comprising the federal judiciary. So I have to admit that even a list of supreme court justices would only scratch the surface of the problem. However, to me, it sounds quite logical. As the founding fathers never imagined a two party system (they didn't imagine federal political parties, as I said) they saw no reason not to vest the appointment of SC justices (and all federal judges, etc) in the person of the president, since the body that would be charged with their approval--the Senate--would be full of shifting factions rather than an on-and-off two party system, of which the president himself would be part.

All I am saying is that because there is now and has been for quite a while, a party system--of which almost all senators and the president himself are members of one or the other party--it's likelier to have a more "ideologically-detached" or at least detached from partisanship, supreme court justice, if 2/3 instead of a simple majority of the senators present was the requirement. Unless one party actually so effectively hammered the other party in two or more congressional elections consecutively (in other words, enough to not just get a 55 to 45 split, but something as high as 67 to 33) it would at least require the president to reach across party lines. There are times indeed when the president *can* rubber-stamp a nomination. Oh, and don't forget we have the Senate Democrats of the last Congress to thank for invoking the "nuclear option" which effectively kills the ability of the minority party to force such compromise via the threat of a filibuster. I can give you the forest here but I'm lacking for trees. I'm sorry.

So, do we know which states have asked for that (as opposed to the 30 or so that specifically asked for a convention on a balanced budget?)?

Where could be found a list of them, and how they asked for it?

As I have tried to explain, some state legislators may have given their opinions to the press as to what they'd like to see in a national amendment convention, I am 100% sure they do not apply to Congress for such a convention to discuss only a specific matter, or matters. Once that national amending convention sets up shop and goes to work, it can propose any amendments it wants. As far as which states have asked, I'm not sure where to look, only in the articles I have read about a bunch of states having applied to Congress for a national convention. If they've listed reasons these legislators wanted the convention, this does not bind the Congress (or the national convention itself) to discuss only those matters. Now an expert in constitutional law would, I admit, be better equipped to pass final judgment on this matter; but the way I read article V, a national convention is essentially a mechanism to bypass Congress as the sole body capable of proposing amendments to the constitution. The way I read article V, there is no way to apply for a convention to discuss a specific amendment asked for by anyone in the state legislature making the application for it. I think they were just discussing their reasons to the press for asking for one, the way I've read it. Congress can't fix a constitutional convention's agenda.

There is a precedent for this: the Philadelphia Convention of May 25 to Sept 17, 1787, which wrote the actual thing. The Congress (the old "Confederation Congress") gave them the agenda--revise the Articles of Confederation. But they basically gave Congress the finger and trashed the constitution, and the entire federal order with it, and wrote a whole new one. I am confident that if Congress attempted to restrict the convention to a certain agenda (balanced budget amendments, campaign finance, whatever) they could tell the Congress to go screw themselves; we're going to propose the amendments we want. I really do not see how any state legislature or the Congress itself could actually bind the national convention to a certain agenda, as you've stated. (If I'm getting what you are saying right, which maybe I'm not.)

I am not sure where you'd look for a list of the states which have applied. Reading the three articles it seems that it almost happened, except that a bunch applied to Congress again to withdraw said application, dropping the number a bit short of 34 legislatures. I guess one could Google "states which have applied to congress for a constitutional convention" if one wanted, and maybe you'd find a list...eventually...if you looked in the right places which is god knows where.

You know what? I could write Chris van Hollen this afternoon and ask him (my congressman), as well as my senators. I think I'll do that, let them know what I am trying to find, etc. As for the "how" specifically, I guess it would be a joint resolution of the two houses of a state legislature, submitted to Congress....maybe addressed to the President of the Senate (Vice-President Joseph R. Biden), maybe the President Pro Tempore of the Senate (one of the dudes from Vermont I think), or the Speaker of the House (Rep. John Boehner of Ohio), maybe the national archivist of the United States, maybe some combination of all four. Since I'm just as interested in the matter (obviously, since I started this thread, of course) I'll do that. But did you read all of the three articles I posted? I know they don't tell us everything, but it's a start.

Let me get back to you on what Chris van Hollen, "Babs" and Senator......what the hell's his name....tell me (having a brainfart right now as to who my other senator is). In the mean time, feel free to hit Google.

I wrote each a short message which roughly consists of:

Dear [sir/senator], I have read articles about an attempt by state legislators across the country to convene a national constitutional convention as per Art. V of the federal constitution. I have read that many state legislatures have already sent in applications to Congress to have one. Are you aware of this effort? If so, how many states have done so, and which ones? I am having trouble finding this information on my own. I'd appreciate it if you could find out for me.

Thank you very much! Sincerely [my actual name]

These messages were sent to them at 3:40ish pm on Friday, May 22, 2015....lets see how fast Sens Cardin and Mikulski, or Rep. Van Hollen, can get back to me. This will be interesting.

In the mean time, the topic came up on Google before I was even finished typing it! So there must be a lot of discussion out there about it. One was a link to a wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States

By the way Ricky, it has been 228 years since the last federal convention. Not 277.