It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Poll: Constitutional Convention

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 02:55 PM
It is not widely known that only two more states must pass a measure in favor of a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) for one to be called. There are some that believe that both parties have been working for years on possible amendments and delegate selection strategies. The constitution is very vague about the processes involved in Constitutional Convention.

Would you support a ConCon if the delegates were selected by lottery?

Article. V.

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, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 06:55 PM

The ConCon Con.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 07:20 PM
concon bad.
concon to be used to con us into letting the rulemakers change the rules so they won't have to conduct themselves in a way that preserves our liberties.
concon bad.
Billy Bob don't need to be prez again,US don't need Billy Bob again.
concon bad.
con is ignored already,concon not needed.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 07:30 PM
Folks you missed the crucial point of the post.

Delegates are selected by lottery.

Of course a ConCon is bad idea given the current political climate. I was hoping you would entertain the hypothetical. Let me restate the question, would you trust your neighbor to be a delegate?

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 07:37 PM
For what purpose is another constitutional convention?

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 07:41 PM

I don't feel qualified to respond, because I've never seen the process....

How many delegates?
What qualification for pre-selection?
Who determines agenda?

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 07:42 PM
There is no pre-determined purpose for the convention. The constitution just says when two thirds states want to have one, we'll have one.

I don't see why you guys dismiss this so easily. Nevada nearly passed a measure in 99'. That would put us one state away from the threshold. I'd say its a matter of time. Might as well be thinking about it.

And I've thought and read some on the matter and frankly I think the lottery system is about the only way to go. Completely random and the selections remain secret until the convention. We really want K-Stree rewriting our Constitution for us?

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 07:52 PM
From a population sampling standpoint (in order to assure representativeness) how many delegates are in the mix for a ConCon?

That would genuinely determine my opinion.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 07:56 PM
Each state gets twice as many delegates as representatives in congress, excluding senators. somewhere near 1000.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 08:00 PM
Sounds reasonable to me, but still subject to the extant level of gerrymandering.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 08:44 PM
Why would one want to arbitrarily tinker with the constitution? Its not like deciding to get together with friends over a pot of coffee and merely discussing whatever comes up. The notion of drawing morons from a hat to fiddle with it seems equally dangerous.

Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to this particualr issue, but it seems to me you are a bit too flippant with one of the most important documents mankind has seen in the last couple hundred years or so.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 08:45 PM
You are talking about sending people who either have no idea of the original intent of the document or understand it and intend on destroying it.
Put the quill down and back away slowly!

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 08:52 PM
....that if this concon happens,the constitution will be change into something unrecognizable,I say leave it alone.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 09:01 PM
My answer is no. And I don't particularly even need to know why "they" feel they should have a concon. I can't think of two people in the house or the senate competent enough to be screwing around with the constitution...

therefore, NO.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 09:06 PM
If anything it needs to be put back in it's original state, for the most part. A few ratifications and ammendments were healthy. but not what we are dealing with today.

posted on Aug, 18 2003 @ 09:07 PM
Look Im not qualified to be determining the best approach to a ConCon either.

But the fact remains we are remarkably close to the threshold and the Constitution is vague here.

Shouldnt we be at least considering what the best approach would be?

Whats happened to We the People. Or is it We the White Landowners with fat 401Ks.

Can anyone think of an approach that would be less susceptible to manipulation and corruption?

Id take the paperboy over Ken Lay any day.

top topics


log in