It’s early in the morning; I’ve only just now finished my first cup of coffee. While much remains to be considered, my immediate thought (in absence of said carefully laid-out rules package) is, “What in the fresh hell….😅🫣🤯.”
First, there should be a time limit on any state's request for a convention. Once that limit has passed then the request is "expired". This is an unworkable loop, as it would take an Amendment to put it in place, but some amount of reasonableness is needed.
Second, for such a call to be a free-for-all seems ridiculous to me. Once called, the convention would need to deal with only those measures put forth by states in their request.
At this point in time, in the end, I'm against it just because MAGA has a coalition Progressives/Liberals can't touch and so would completely control things. The Right already wants to quit the game and take their toys home if they don't get their way.
As for what I'd love to see changed: terms limits enacted, institute ranked choice voting/eliminating the Electoral College, election reform to make them federally funded/eliminate all possibility of dark money, do away with the inauguration fund, and publish the ERA, which should've been done ages ago (that we don't interpret it as being included in the original wording is beyond me anyway - man means mankind, which includes everyone).
I like what you say about an expiration date for requests for a convention. For one, a state can change radically between 1805 and 2025. I imagine that what my state wanted in the 19th century is different than what it wants today. And since my state is in the South, I certainly hope so.
I think that leaving too much up to individual states dilutes the concept of The United States. I’m all for amending the Constitution, but not through a new Constitutional Convention. We are too divided as a nation.
Ok, yes, I can see how the Constitution would need to be updated. That makes sense to me. But until we come to a consensus on what kind of country we want, I would rather leave the document alone. Until we share a common vision (even if we disagree on the details), I think it would be dangerous to call a convention.
Feingold, Prindville, and Farris’ disdain for the majority of Americans, and desire to ram through changes not wanted by the majority definitely qualify them for GW’s warning of “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men subvert(ing) the power of the people and usurp(ing) for themselves the reins of government.”
Amen!! It scared me too! And we’re reading this on January 6. Another day when I watched the events of that day occur, scared for the first time in my adult life when I realized just how fragile our precious country’s democracy is.
There's a time limit on States ratifying a Constitutional amendment - that's why the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified and signed. Wouldn't/ shouldn't there be a similar "expiration date" on States' requests for a Constitutional Convention?
Thank you for this comprehensive breakdown of the Constitutional Convention process. I believe we absolutely need a convention, but the crucial question is how to ensure it truly represents the will of the American people.
The 2024 election results actually highlight how tricky this question of representation is. Consider how in Senate races, Republicans effectively started with a 4.2 percentage point advantage due to structural factors - enough to flip control. Under the Convention of States' proposed one-state-one-vote model, these same structural imbalances would give disproportionate convention power to states that already benefit from representational advantages.
This gets to a fundamental paradox: many of the reforms people want from a constitutional convention involve limiting the power of the very institutions and leaders who would control the convention process. It's like asking foxes to design better henhouse security. When the Convention of States simulation used the same one-state-one-vote model from 1787, it ignored not only the vast population differences between states like Wyoming and California, but also this inherent conflict of interest.
So, how do we ensure a convention actually serves the broader public interest when the current power structures would control its rules and representation? I do not know how, honestly. But I do have to admit and acknowledge that it is a bigger question for me given the disadvantages my preferred politics face. I am sure that if the tables were turned, I would be gleeful that the antiquated system happens to align with my interests.
And what safeguards could prevent a convention from being captured by the same institutional biases it might need to reform?
Thinking back to Sharon’s previous advice on how to repair our electoral process, I believe she was suggesting these Constitutional check-ups should be performed by independent citizen groups who would not be directly impacted by the reforms they find necessary. Is that a possibility? If not, how do we make it so?
By the way, I forgot to cite my source for the 4.2% advantage that Republicans had in the Senate elections. This systemic disparity isn’t limited to the last election. As shown in the chart at the link below, voters in higher-density areas—who often pay higher property taxes—tend to have less influence in Senate elections due to the way representation is allocated. Here’s the source: https://abcnews.go.com/538/after-2024-election-democrats-steep-disadvantage-senate/story?id=116637086
The malapportionment is a huge concern, as is the sentiment that because only 1% of the population ever participates, we don’t need the rest involved, as if their lack of civic engagement warrants a lack of concern for their welfare. By this logic, someone who holds a deeply misguided understanding of our country’s history, like your one time, racist and misogynistic book tour driver, could literally play a huge role in altering how our nation is governed. I love that article v allows for an opportunity for new concepts to be brought to the table, but not without a set of rules and a commitment to seeking the greatest good for all of our nation’s citizens.
Regardless of the path to a constitutional amendment proposal (Congress or Constitutional Convention), it seems like the biggest obstacle to overcome is this: "...three-fourths of the states must agree to ratify it." The last time it was amended was 1992 - 33 years ago. Is there evidence that 38 states can agree on anything substantial enough to warrant a constitutional amendment? Here's the current state partisan composition: https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition. Neither party is close to having 38 states under their party's control.
I wondered whether those leading the constitutional convention can select state representatives in a partisan manner that would allow them to push through changes? I don’t believe there are many “rules” as to who can call the convention, how they represent their state, etc. I think the fear is that if these men can “claim” 38 states have called a convention and then just hand-pick their reps, then they could potentially cause a lot of damage. But that wasn’t clear from this article.
As someone who was in the circles that admired Farris and others like him, and heard their calls for a constitutional convention, it mostly concerns me now that I can see how dangerous their perspective and goals are.
I think this could potentially be very dangerous and have end results no one can really anticipate. The fact that it's even possible leaves me feeling uneasy.
I see the pros and cons to a constitutional convention. I see where it can be advantageous but also how it could be dangerous if left in the hands of someone seeking wrongful power and control.
It’s early in the morning; I’ve only just now finished my first cup of coffee. While much remains to be considered, my immediate thought (in absence of said carefully laid-out rules package) is, “What in the fresh hell….😅🫣🤯.”
Mine was "Good God, Lemon!"
First, there should be a time limit on any state's request for a convention. Once that limit has passed then the request is "expired". This is an unworkable loop, as it would take an Amendment to put it in place, but some amount of reasonableness is needed.
Second, for such a call to be a free-for-all seems ridiculous to me. Once called, the convention would need to deal with only those measures put forth by states in their request.
At this point in time, in the end, I'm against it just because MAGA has a coalition Progressives/Liberals can't touch and so would completely control things. The Right already wants to quit the game and take their toys home if they don't get their way.
As for what I'd love to see changed: terms limits enacted, institute ranked choice voting/eliminating the Electoral College, election reform to make them federally funded/eliminate all possibility of dark money, do away with the inauguration fund, and publish the ERA, which should've been done ages ago (that we don't interpret it as being included in the original wording is beyond me anyway - man means mankind, which includes everyone).
I like what you say about an expiration date for requests for a convention. For one, a state can change radically between 1805 and 2025. I imagine that what my state wanted in the 19th century is different than what it wants today. And since my state is in the South, I certainly hope so.
I think that leaving too much up to individual states dilutes the concept of The United States. I’m all for amending the Constitution, but not through a new Constitutional Convention. We are too divided as a nation.
Ok, yes, I can see how the Constitution would need to be updated. That makes sense to me. But until we come to a consensus on what kind of country we want, I would rather leave the document alone. Until we share a common vision (even if we disagree on the details), I think it would be dangerous to call a convention.
I think we’re overdue for some constitutional changes but we need carefully laid out rules to make sure what GW warned us about doesn’t happen.
Feingold, Prindville, and Farris’ disdain for the majority of Americans, and desire to ram through changes not wanted by the majority definitely qualify them for GW’s warning of “cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men subvert(ing) the power of the people and usurp(ing) for themselves the reins of government.”
Thanks for the warning, GW!
Scariest thing I have read in a long time. Farris' comments are really scary.
Amen!! It scared me too! And we’re reading this on January 6. Another day when I watched the events of that day occur, scared for the first time in my adult life when I realized just how fragile our precious country’s democracy is.
There's a time limit on States ratifying a Constitutional amendment - that's why the Equal Rights Amendment was never ratified and signed. Wouldn't/ shouldn't there be a similar "expiration date" on States' requests for a Constitutional Convention?
Thank you for this comprehensive breakdown of the Constitutional Convention process. I believe we absolutely need a convention, but the crucial question is how to ensure it truly represents the will of the American people.
The 2024 election results actually highlight how tricky this question of representation is. Consider how in Senate races, Republicans effectively started with a 4.2 percentage point advantage due to structural factors - enough to flip control. Under the Convention of States' proposed one-state-one-vote model, these same structural imbalances would give disproportionate convention power to states that already benefit from representational advantages.
This gets to a fundamental paradox: many of the reforms people want from a constitutional convention involve limiting the power of the very institutions and leaders who would control the convention process. It's like asking foxes to design better henhouse security. When the Convention of States simulation used the same one-state-one-vote model from 1787, it ignored not only the vast population differences between states like Wyoming and California, but also this inherent conflict of interest.
So, how do we ensure a convention actually serves the broader public interest when the current power structures would control its rules and representation? I do not know how, honestly. But I do have to admit and acknowledge that it is a bigger question for me given the disadvantages my preferred politics face. I am sure that if the tables were turned, I would be gleeful that the antiquated system happens to align with my interests.
And what safeguards could prevent a convention from being captured by the same institutional biases it might need to reform?
Thinking back to Sharon’s previous advice on how to repair our electoral process, I believe she was suggesting these Constitutional check-ups should be performed by independent citizen groups who would not be directly impacted by the reforms they find necessary. Is that a possibility? If not, how do we make it so?
That previous post, for reference: https://thepreamble.com/p/my-proposal-to-improve-elections
Thank you for something to chew on all day.
By the way, I forgot to cite my source for the 4.2% advantage that Republicans had in the Senate elections. This systemic disparity isn’t limited to the last election. As shown in the chart at the link below, voters in higher-density areas—who often pay higher property taxes—tend to have less influence in Senate elections due to the way representation is allocated. Here’s the source: https://abcnews.go.com/538/after-2024-election-democrats-steep-disadvantage-senate/story?id=116637086
Good Grief. I feel ill. This really raises the current danger to our democracy. I appreciate the knowledge though.
The malapportionment is a huge concern, as is the sentiment that because only 1% of the population ever participates, we don’t need the rest involved, as if their lack of civic engagement warrants a lack of concern for their welfare. By this logic, someone who holds a deeply misguided understanding of our country’s history, like your one time, racist and misogynistic book tour driver, could literally play a huge role in altering how our nation is governed. I love that article v allows for an opportunity for new concepts to be brought to the table, but not without a set of rules and a commitment to seeking the greatest good for all of our nation’s citizens.
Regardless of the path to a constitutional amendment proposal (Congress or Constitutional Convention), it seems like the biggest obstacle to overcome is this: "...three-fourths of the states must agree to ratify it." The last time it was amended was 1992 - 33 years ago. Is there evidence that 38 states can agree on anything substantial enough to warrant a constitutional amendment? Here's the current state partisan composition: https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/state-partisan-composition. Neither party is close to having 38 states under their party's control.
I wondered whether those leading the constitutional convention can select state representatives in a partisan manner that would allow them to push through changes? I don’t believe there are many “rules” as to who can call the convention, how they represent their state, etc. I think the fear is that if these men can “claim” 38 states have called a convention and then just hand-pick their reps, then they could potentially cause a lot of damage. But that wasn’t clear from this article.
As someone who was in the circles that admired Farris and others like him, and heard their calls for a constitutional convention, it mostly concerns me now that I can see how dangerous their perspective and goals are.
I think this could potentially be very dangerous and have end results no one can really anticipate. The fact that it's even possible leaves me feeling uneasy.
I see the pros and cons to a constitutional convention. I see where it can be advantageous but also how it could be dangerous if left in the hands of someone seeking wrongful power and control.
It will be a states convention to undo Citizens United and pass the Equal Rights Amendment, right? RIGHT?! lol but seriously this is terrifying 😬