Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Publius
The time of the original convention was a time where propriaties were still held dear. The extremes between the framers were still composed of the times that they had just been through in the rebellion and the times taht had jsut left.

The extremes available to us now are almost repulsive to contemplate. I have some faith in our general citizenry, that is very true. But the general would not make up the specific and the specific would have the "all walks of life" and "include all voices" component that would let the extemes of twentieth century excesses into the mix.

I would like to see deficiencies and missteps corrected. I would like the pride of authorship for my contemporaries to take some pride in each day as the Republic goes forward, but the Congress could pass and amendment and they could pass another to undue it as they have done. Should we have even a modestly broad selection of issues addressed by "the People" I don't see the congress or the people ever being able to undo the damage if mistakes were made, subsiquently recognized and then sought to be addressed.

The winning side in the convention would use their win to delegitamate the challenge, IMHO>

Think for a minute how, within five years of its implementation, the Roe v. Wade decision became so set in stone to be called "the law of the land", the "right to an abortion" and all a permenantly settled matter in the press. Such would be the fate of any misstep.

15 posted on 04/25/2007 12:42:26 PM PDT by KC Burke (Men of intemperate minds can never be free...their passions forge their fetters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: KC Burke
The extremes available to us now are almost repulsive to contemplate.

As repulsive as the era when slavery was the hot topic?

But the general would not make up the specific and the specific would have the "all walks of life" and "include all voices" component that would let the extemes of twentieth century excesses into the mix.

Yet that is exactly what Congress represents today. And it doesn't even matter which party is in control. Congress has the exact same proposal power as a Convention for Proposing Amendments, and following this logic, we are in grave danger from Congress. (OK, maybe there's a point there, as even Mark Twain would have agreed with that sentiment.)

Should we have even a modestly broad selection of issues addressed by "the People" I don't see the congress or the people ever being able to undo the damage if mistakes were made, subsiquently recognized and then sought to be addressed.

We went through that experience with the 18th and 21st Amendments. It was a harsh lesson certainly, but the mistake was finally undone. The fact that we've been bludgeoned before by the Law of Unintended Consequences would, I believe, make a convention just as cautious as Congress in its amendatory power. After all, for the past 30 years, all sort of amendment proposals have been brought up in Congress, but none have passed the bar. The last amendment to be ratified was proposed in 1789, and its ratification was something of a fluke.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I think a Convention for Proposing Amendments would be such a shock to the system that everyone involved would be on his best behavior lest he cause political dynamite to detonate.

20 posted on 04/25/2007 2:08:03 PM PDT by Publius (A = A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson