The Donklephant Plan
By Jacob | Related entries in NewsHi. My name is Jacob and I’m honored to be posting here at Donklephant. I’ve been reading the blog for more than a year and can’t wait to see what the new writers bring. Personally, I was sucked in by the quality of the threads and the idea that there is a middle ground to be found. There’s enormous potential in a forum where thoughtful, educated people of all persuasions can discuss the issues of the day without calling each other names.
Well, mostly without calling names.
I’m reminded of America’s founding fathers, who drew from every system of human knowledge to create a government better than the world had ever seen. Never before had the powers of government and the rights of people been so explicitly detailed. All because a few smart people cared enough to figure out how to do it.
For several weeks I’ve been reflecting on the potential and ambition of Donklephant. I keep coming to the conclusion that this blog (forum + contributors) is like an ongoing Constitutional Convention. Blessed with the foundation laid by our founding fathers, we recognize a continued obligation to ensure a stable, controlled government fluid enough to evolve with the truths we hold to be self-evident.
This starts with the capacity to truly listen to other (different) opinions and be honest with ourselves. I think these are things that everyone at Donklephant (bloggers and commenters) does better than most.
I keep thinking about how the Constitutional Convention was intended to simply fine tune the Articles of Confederation – and how certain troublemakers planned to scrap it from the start. It’s difficult today to imagine subjecting our precious Constitution to such a swift and radical overhaul, but it’s fun to contemplate the phoenix that would rise from the ashes.
What would it look like? Who could we trust to do it?
This entry was posted on Saturday, July 18th, 2009 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
July 18th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I think a new Constitutional Convention is almost impossible to do now, because many of today’s politicians unfortunately aren’t independent (and some even intelligent) enough to view the process neutrally. The founding fathers forged the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution out of necessity and hope. That’s not to say it was a perfect process, the inclusion of slavery is first and foremost an example, but it was debated and compromised to factor in basic rights.
A Constitution reworked today would probably devolve into any other legislation in Congress, with loopholes and the like. And that’s before any outside interests get a hold of it. Especially with politicians trying to appease their constituents by pandering and twittering. It would have to be politicians, because there would be an uproar if lawyers and philosophers and educators were behind it like the original founding fathers.
Although I would hope that if a new convention was established, some politicians would set aside partisanship to actually make something meaningful. And that a broader spectrum of people were involved instead of just white men. Just hope it gets enough votes to get it ratified
July 18th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
I don’t think it’s impossible. Advisable? I don’t know.
Article V of the constitution clearly says we can do it but only tells us how to initiate it. I would imagine once 2/3 of the states call for the convention we’d be on our own to figure out the delegate election process.
I agree with you on the first point. If it were up to me, I would send all federal politicians for a trip on the B-Ark. But I think a lot of people would feel this way and we’d see mostly state politicians (or personalities) headed to Philly or Vegas or whatever location was chosen for this “historic event”.
Politicians already have the mechanisms in place to win elections, but lawyers, philosophers and educators have some tools at their disposal. A lawyer could post his “application” on youtube and go viral. Soon the whole state is talking. The whole country would be talking about the convention already, even Michael Jackson’s death couldn’t pry this from jaws of CNN.
I imagine South Carolina and Texas would send at least one reverend each to protect us from the gays. Massachusetts and California would send a couple of gays to protect us against the Christians. We’d be able to keep slavery out of it this time but I’m sure there would be something in there to regret 200 years from now.
We’d probably end up regretting how the whole thing went to pot and fractured the union.
But! In order for it to work, there would have to be compromise. And compromise starts with civility and all that other stuff I think the Donk does so well … except Jimmy and Michael. Good lord.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:26 am
The author and replies are incorrect in their assumption that a convention called under Article V is a constitutional convention, that is, one empowered to write a new Constitution.
The language of Article V is clear and obvious if it is read fully. The purpose of the convention is to “propose amendments”, not write a new Constitution. Further, any amendments must become “part of this Constitution” meaning, obviously, the amendment becomes part of the present Constitution, not the Constitution becomes part of the amendment. Thus, even if a convention dis propose a new constitution, it would have to become part of the original document with that document left intact.
The fact is the states have applied for a convention. Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and call it as required. All 50 states have submitted 750 applications for a convention call. The applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Bill,
The 1787 convention was not intended to replace the AoC and, at the time, wasn’t called the Constitutional Convention either. The idea of calling a new convention a “Constitutional Convention” is generally accepted.
Article V of the Constitution (the full text):
You say:
The Constitution can be completely reworked and still left “intact” if future amendments render certain parts moot. See the 3/5 compromise and section 2 of the 14th amendment.
If someone proposes the following amendment at a new convention and the states ratify it:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a guy named Bob from Detroit, who we like a lot and has some good ideas.”
Then Article I Section I will still be in the document, but the document will have significantly changed.
This seems disingenuous to me. These 750 applications are spread out over the past 200 years and address multiple concerns. The closest we’ve come to 2/3 of states applying for a single concern at the same time is in 1983 for the Balanced Budget Convention.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
The idea of a constitutional convention is something that pops into my mind from time to time. When I think of it, it’s quickly connected to a whole series of related thoughts. The temptation then, is to release what Robert Pirsig referred to as a chautauqua.
An unkind thing to unleash on the unwitting, Pirsig hastened to add. So I’ll try to be brief, at least for me.
My first thought is that if a CC were to happen, it could conceivably be a TOTAL F&*%KING nightmare. MY personal worry is that we might, armed with our modern egos, “education,” and selfishness unmake something that could not be re-made in this modern era.
The US was formed as a republic wherein wealthy landowners agreed on a framework to govern an overwhelmingly uneducated and uninformed populace, in an environment where even the tiniest bits of information took weeks and months to travel even to the next hill or town, let alone state. We’ve come a few galaxies since then, no?
Pleas notice that since then, those founding compromises have governed us astonishingly well, speaking comparatively. Far better than most other nations, in other words. Could America, in the 21st century, in the face of a singular challenge to its economical viability, open the floor to the reformation of every bit we’ve established in over 200 years, and survive?
I don’t want to know. I don’t want to open Pandora’s box unless we have a belt, suspenders, and diapers security plan to guarantee we will get the lid back on.
July 21st, 2009 at 4:20 am
Frankly I would bet everything I own that it would be impossible to get 2/3 of state leg’s, or the House and Senate, to support the idea of such an event. I’d love to see one pass on a balanced budget though… with a provision that a minimum amount is set aside every year to paying off principle on our debt… but I digress.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:02 am
No one really wants a Constitutional Convention that bad because it can not be limited to consideration of only one issue. Once convened, everything is on the table, not just your own pet issue, and that’s downright scary.