Is it time for a new Constitutional Convention?

[thebluefood]

This morning, I was flipping through the channels and I ran across a book talk on C-SPAN 2 conducted by a fellow named Sanford Levinson. I never heard of him, but after doing a bit of research I found out he's a professor at UT-Austin who believes the Constitution is terribly flawed and that the United States is in need of a second Constitutional Convention.

This is, of course, blasphemy to main stream legal thinking. I'm not even sure I can really wrap my mind around it yet; but it at least serves as an interesting talking point.

So, what do you guys think? Has the time come for us to remake the Constitution?

[LadySkinsFan]

No, the Constitution is working just fine. Just the activist justices that voted Citizens United and Bush v. Gore need to go. If anything needs changing, we have the amendment process built in.

[thebluefood]

No, the Constitution is working just fine. Just the activist justices that voted Citizens United and Bush v. Gore need to go. If anything needs changing, we have the amendment process built in.

While I agree that activist judges are a problem, I've noticed people only seem to get upset about it when it favors "the other side."

But, what Sanford says is that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Here's a small excerpt about the book from Levinston's page:

In Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It), Sanford Levinson argues that too many of its provisions promote either unjust or ineffective government. Under the existing blueprint, we can neither rid ourselves of incompetent presidents nor assure continuity of government following catastrophic attacks. Also problematic is the appointment of Supreme Court judges for life. Adding insult to injury, the United States Constitution is the most difficult to amend or update of any constitution currently existing in the world today.

[FanboyOf91]

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....1.ukgmW4BYbBE

Which one should I be looking at?

[AsburySkinsFan]

Seriously, does anyone really believe that this would amount to anything more than a collosal waste of time?
I've often wondered if I'll ever see a Constitutional Amendment in my lifetime, and I doubt it because we are so divided that 50% of people holding an opinion is a good majority. This is a debate that will never see anything more than the echoes in the halls of the academy.

[Ellis]

In Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It), Sanford Levinson argues that too many of its provisions promote either unjust or ineffective government. Under the existing blueprint, we can neither rid ourselves of incompetent presidents nor assure continuity of government following catastrophic attacks. Also problematic is the appointment of Supreme Court judges for life. Adding insult to injury, the United States Constitution is the most difficult to amend or update of any constitution currently existing in the world today.

I can't see why the bolded section is a bad thing. I'd hate to have a Constitution that could be easily changed.

[thebluefood]

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc....1.ukgmW4BYbBE

Which one should I be looking at?

This is the show I saw.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/sl.../undemocratic/
Here's the link to a website about his book Where the Constitution Goes Wrong (And How We the People Can Correct It).

[thebluefood]

Seriously, does anyone really believe that this would amount to anything more than a collosal waste of time?
I've often wondered if I'll ever see a Constitutional Amendment in my lifetime, and I doubt it because we are so divided that 50% of people holding an opinion is a good majority. This is a debate that will never see anything more than the echoes in the halls of the academy.

Well, technically, you have (albeit a very minior one). The 27th Amendment was passed in 1992 and it deals with compensation for congressmen.

But, I do see where you're coming from. I don't think that should happen and, frankly, I don't think it would be a good idea. I think Levinson brings up some interesting points, though, that are worth looking into and debating.

[mjah]

Admittedly I didn't read anything beyond that snippet. But those kinds of things -- including the ostensibly "problematic" difficulty of amending the Constitution -- can all be solved via amendments to the existing document.

So I presume that the author must have other, far more fundamental objections to the Constitution which justify a convention, rather than a simple series of amendments.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with setting a high hurdle for amendments. They should only be made when virtually all reasonable people agree to them. Even with our high hurdle in place, we still had the ill-fated 18th Amendment, requiring the 21st to undo it. Hearing plenty of crazy talk in past years about social regression like anti-gay-marriage amendments, and after watching what southern states have Frankensteined their own constitutions into today, I see no reason to make our government's most sacred document an easier target for public mania.

[LadySkinsFan]

I'll add that the only 2 amendments I see now are to reverse the Citizens United decision and one to limit the term of the USSC justices. People are living longer, so appointees have a much longer time to influence one way or the other. Although I do prefer a more progressive court.

[thebluefood]

I'll add that the only 2 amendments I see now are to reverse the Citizens United decision and one to limit the term of the USSC justices. People are living longer, so appointees have a much longer time to influence one way or the other. Although I do prefer a more progressive court.

I'm shocked.

[Larry]

I don't think I'm capable of imagining anything that would terrify me more than the thought of writing a new Constitution.

[thebluefood]

I don't think I'm capable of imagining anything that would terrify me more than the thought of writing a new Constitution.

How about those big ass spiders that appear in the forums every so often?

I agree, though. Our current Constitution barely made it out of its infancy. Can you imagine the madness that would ensue if we tried to do it all again?

[SnyderShrugged]

I support a Con/Con, if for nothing else than to firmly clarify some of the shades of grey

[Buford]

I don't think I'm capable of imagining anything that would terrify me more than the thought of writing a new Constitution.

agreed, No way you get anything half as good with these current jerks running things.

We need tweaks to our system. Not the constitution. Popular vote for President. Strict terms for judicial appointments at all levels (you can always keep moving up). Term limits all over the place.