The existing congress and POTUS have zero involvement in a constitutional convention. Once the call for convention is ratified by congress, the federal government is not invovled.
Factually Incorrect. The states petition the Congress to form one which is ratified by (presently) 34 state legislatures the same call for one. Once ratified, the United States Congress forms the convention.
Here is the relevant text of Article 5:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments
The Congress starts the convention, which means it determines who gets to go, and when it is.
Once a constitutional convention is underway, I’m hard pressed to believe how the federal government has any real power.
Would you mind reading what I wrote? Why are you arguing my position for me as if it is yours and mine is wrong? I clearly denoted on more than one occasion that once it is started all bets were off. That is the inherent risk of a convention. I also pointed out how the convention which produced our constitution was called for specific purpose but they went on to rewrite the entire government. Why would I write at length about who controls the states if I was claiming the federal government had power over it once it started?
I’m pretty confident like the original founders, that the “state delegates” would focus on creating a constitutional and federal structure that all 50 states could approve.
So you lack confidence in the Republicans who have control to do the right thing now, but somehow believe that they would behave entirely differently given the raw and awesome power of a constitutional convention given their ability to have the needed state legislatures ratify it? That is nonsense. And again, they don’t need all fifty states. Even the orginal didn’t need all thirteen.
My view is a starting position that clarifies my perspective on why the current constitution doesn’t work for CA.
Then clarify it. All I’ve seen is you saying you don’t like that CA didn’t get to decide the presidency.
I would be very interested in what you think your state would start with — can be a simple as keeping the current constitution.
Why do you insist on collectivising my response by shifting it from what I would want, to a hypothetical “what my state would start with”? I’m not going to speculate on what millions of people might want just because they are in the same state I am anymore than I would accept your claims to speak on behalf of what CA would want. Nor am I the one advocating for a convention, so it is not on me to provide what I would do with one, but on you. And you refuse to do so.
that two sub-constitutions would emerge and the US would divide into two sub-groups.
So we’ve dispensed with your claims that we need a convention to “unite us”, then? Because that is the opposite of uniting. At least that is some progress.
Once those were in place, those two could agree on a unified government.
So allow me to be clear on what you are saying here. You are saying that we would not be able to agree on a singular government and would become two different governments then, somehow (magic of positive thinking?), merge back into one? That makes no sense to me.
As a person who has created international technology standards across fircely competitive companies, I’m pretty familiar with how the process moves from very self serving to focused on the majority because the goal helps everyone.
As someone who has been involved in political movement and attempts at actually getting the convention you claim to want I am very familiar with how politics and politicians work and how it very quickly devolves into name calling and wanting to take one’s ball and go home. Companies lack the force of government and have to arrive at an agreement. In politics and government the opposite is true: due to the power being wielded and sought people dig in their heels and fight harder until the other side simply gives up. The convention that produced our current constitution was very volatile and contentious and took months, and they still didn’t agree on what they had written or why. The only reason it worked was that the anti-federalists got tired and gave up.
Look at the shenanigans by both Democrats and Republicans in just this last cycle, go to the mirror, and try to say to yourself with a straight face that you genuinely believe these two groups of people can get together and do what you want them to. If you think the people in a convention will not be decided by those two groups, you are a fool.
Regardless, if the world can agree on the Paris agreement (except for the current POTUS), the US states can agree on a constitution.
Except that, if you paid attention to it, you would understand they didn’t agree to anything that they could be actually accountable for. Any agreement that lacks enforcement is not an agreement. Further, I could point to the United Nations which would more often than not serve as counterfactuals to your above claim.
You haven’t describe your perspective on the founding fathers and the current constitution.
Right, because it is irrelevant. My perspective on those topics are not relevant to the facts, such as they are, about the mechanics of a constitutional convention, how they are began, what can be done with one, and the power structure of the parties which would be involved. My opinion on, say Madison, has no bearing on the fact that the States petition Congress to form a constitutional convention, that as such they get to decide the time and initial number as well as qualifications for delegates, and that once it starts all bets are off as to what can be done. Nor does my opinion or perspective on the current constitution have any bearing on the facts of which party controls the majority of state governments.
You seem to want to maintain it as it is.
If that is what you saw, that is your own wish for me to want. I’ve clearly denoted a few changes that I would see. Not everyone who doesn’t jump on board with your vague changes other than “CA wants more power of elections” is for the status quo. As someone who has studied it extensively, actually worked for changing it (not merely whining on the Internet), and read the contemporaneous writings around it, I find plenty of faults both with it and with how we’ve abused and weakened it and the protections it birthed.
The ironic thing about those that idiolize the founding fathers and the current constitution yet create warnings about having a constitutional convention, is that the founding fathers included the clause for the states to call it. You can’t idiolize the founding fathers and the current constitution but not idiolize the one part of it that can change it the most.
That is a rather long non-sequitor. I do not idolize (there are only two “is” in that word btw) these people. Are you willfully ignoring the fact that not only can a constitutional convention completely rewrite the constitution, the one time we had one that is precisely what we did. This isn’t idle theory or FUD, this is historical and legal fact.
I’m hoping this answers your questions but my guess is that it doesn’t.
Of course it doesn’t because those aren’t the questions I asked, and clearly you know it. That is not to say that what you wrote here finally had some worthy merit, but as to the avoidance of the questions, you are correct in that you still avoided them.
You seem to like to debate like the current POTUS.
Ahh the backhanded insult. The problem with this insult is, this isn’t a debate, nor am Idebating you. If you want to debate we have to set some ground rules, andyou have to place a specific, well considered and defined, proposal and argue specific points for it. We have set no ground rules, and you’ve not done the latter. This was a discussion, or at least an attempt at one.
But here is an idea: stop making men of straw.
The fact that the current constitution allowed that POTUS to be elected is why I’m promoting CA to call for a constitutional convention (following the constitution) and if necessary invoking the concepts in the declaration independence.
So, it really is just a “I didn’t get my way so I want to change the rules” whine. Got it. You truly know nothing about the ideals the country was founded on if “you elected someone I don’t like so lets burn it all down and do it my way” is what you think America is about. As for the Declaration of Independence reference, if you understood that document and were trying to imitate its concepts and spirit you’d be calling for secession, not a constitutional convention.
You want to use atomic weaponry to purge the infidels from your precious view of who should be POTUS. You want to use that weaponry to burn down the controls and protections against tyranny that were specifically crafted and put in place because you don’t like who won in November and December of 2016, all while benefiting from how those very protections saved you from growing up in a Fascist America, which you probably don’t even realize was openly being created by the ruling party in the early 1900s because all you’ve done is read as little as possible (if at all) that there exists a constitutional convention and decided it is the magic bullet to undoing your loss.
You apparently know little, if anything, about how the sitting congress can entirely eliminate federal taxes but think you need a new constitution to do it. You don’t even need an amendment to do that. You think you need to torch the constitution just to change how elections work ignoring, or being blindingly ignorant of, the fact that we’ve done that a few times with no convention required.
But that should be no surprise when you can not even elucidate why you think CA should have decided the election (other than “cuz I don’t like the outcome”), why CA should have any sort of power over the rest of the states or why 30 states should submit to “CA’s perspective” on POTUS, and try rather hard to pretend those questions were not asked.
You can not explain why you think the office of POTUS should be decided by we the people, and probably can’t even describe accurately why it is not done that way in the first place. If you can’t understand why something like that is, you are highly unlikely to be capable of tinkering with it without devastating results.
If you’re looking for some debate, you won’t find it here. I don’t debate with people who clearly have no skill in debating and possess no in depth knowledge of the subject matter, just as I refuse to debate a subject I lack the requisite knowledge on. I certainly don’t debate with people who refuse to answer questions that were asked or understand the plain english or the legal and historical facts surrounding the issue supposedly being debated.
While I have no doubt your alleged effort to call a convention has less than a zero percent change of succeeding (you have a better chance at seceding), I’l l provide you in parting with some resources to better educate yourself on what you’re trying to do. Start with the articles of confederation, then the proposed constitution from the convention, move up to the Federalist Papers as well as the Anti-Federalist Papers which were attempts to persuade for or against ratification, and then move on to the many legal opinions throughout the last two hundred years of thought around a convention. Then, feel free to get back to me. Until then, since you are apparently looking for debate and I am not going to provide it and you’re incapable of doing it, and since I prefer discussion, especially in scenarios like these, and you aren’t going to provide that, I see no point in continuing this discourse.
Good day, and good reading.