Discussion Arising from OKC 2nd Amendment Rally

[TerryMiller]

While I probably need to brush up some on the procedures, but I seem to recall that if a constitutional convention were to be convened, it would be the Congress that "appointed" in some fashion those that would be on the actual "convention" to come up with a new constitution.

Sorry, but I don't trust those folks with the latitude they would have of appointing liberals and moderate republicans who willingly "want to work with the other side." I'm sure that even some Republicans would be willing to leave out certain rights.

Also, is there a set process within our current constitution as to how a constitutional convention would be "ratified?" If there isn't, and the American people's votes were not considered with the process of the legislatures having a say, then I would see nothing but damage that could never be repaired by allowing such a convention to be held.

Now, having touched on that, a question about the 17th. If the 17th were repealed, wouldn't it be possible that a future "Obama-like" individual would get pork sent the the large metropolitan areas of a state to influence the voters who would be voting? Conversely, wouldn't such an individual send pork to representative districts in order to affect the votes there for legislators who might be inclined to "take the money and run" again?

With the current system, flawed as it may be, our representatives are subject to hearing from the people if they are displeased with proposed legislation or regulations. If that were gone, do you suppose that a state's governor would be inclined to look out for the people's interest and communicate the people's interests to appointed Senators? After all, did ex-Governor Henry sign on to gun rights for Oklahoma citizens?

I've not voted in the poll yet, because I'm still wrestling with the answers.

 

[mugsy]

Good thought provoking question. I like having veto power. It may be easily canceled by another voter with opposing ideas, but it's my opportunity to express my opinion.

You would still have that power via your voting for State representatives and since they are closer to "the people" in terms of both physical location and number of votes that would seem to give you significant influence in the overall system. You do not, however, under either system have "Veto" power. Your vote is significant but it is nothing like the veto power that the president and some governor's possess.

 

[mugsy]

While I probably need to brush up some on the procedures, but I seem to recall that if a constitutional convention were to be convened, it would be the Congress that "appointed" in some fashion those that would be on the actual "convention" to come up with a new constitution.

Sorry, but I don't trust those folks with the latitude they would have of appointing liberals and moderate republicans who willingly "want to work with the other side." I'm sure that even some Republicans would be willing to leave out certain rights.

Also, is there a set process within our current constitution as to how a constitutional convention would be "ratified?" If there isn't, and the American people's votes were not considered with the process of the legislatures having a say, then I would see nothing but damage that could never be repaired by allowing such a convention to be held.

Now, having touched on that, a question about the 17th. If the 17th were repealed, wouldn't it be possible that a future "Obama-like" individual would get pork sent the the large metropolitan areas of a state to influence the voters who would be voting? Conversely, wouldn't such an individual send pork to representative districts in order to affect the votes there for legislators who might be inclined to "take the money and run" again?

With the current system, flawed as it may be, our representatives are subject to hearing from the people if they are displeased with proposed legislation or regulations. If that were gone, do you suppose that a state's governor would be inclined to look out for the people's interest and communicate the people's interests to appointed Senators? After all, did ex-Governor Henry sign on to gun rights for Oklahoma citizens?

I've not voted in the poll yet, because I'm still wrestling with the answers.

When I mentioned the ConCon I touched on it never having been done since the first one. That is a real problem since it would be a grey area -the precedent would seem to be that once called the States would decide on their own delegations' compositions but I can't say there is any established procedure. I think it is far more likely that if there ever was enough political pressure to really make a Convention a possibility then Congress would act rapidly to pass the amendment via the more common means and get it out to the States to defuse any such possibility.

To address your other question - the whole point of not having Senator's directly elected would be to strengthen the hand of States, as separate members of the pillars of Federalism, by giving them a voice. Right now each Congressional District has a representative of the People (House members) and each State has two representatives of the people at large (US Senators) and the States as organic entities have nothing. The States have been politically emasculated and, as a result, there is no longer an effective counter-balance to Federal encroachment on State sovereignty.

 

[vvvvvvv]

I think it is far more likely that if there ever was enough political pressure to really make a Convention a possibility then Congress would act rapidly to pass the amendment via the more common means and get it out to the States to defuse any such possibility.

That's part of what led to the 17th being referred to the people at the time that it was. 29 out of the 31 required states had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional Convention on the matter. Two more had passed resolutions supporting a Constitutional Convention, but not going as far as formally calling for one.

IIRC, most of the states calling for or supporting a Constitutional Convention already directly elected their Senators. (Been a while since I looked at that data, and I couldn't find it with a 5 minute search, and I really don't have the time to verify it 100% right now.)