Jump to content
270soft Forum
jnewt

Forum Constitutional Convention Proposals and Discussion

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jnewt said:

Are there any other proposals for Article 5?

I personally believe that Constitutional Amendments have become FAR too difficult to enact, thus crippling and stymying all NEEDED and DESPERATELY CRIED OUT FOR reforms in the Constitutional System in the U.S. as it stands, making even reform NECASSASSARY to address and solve base, fundamental, and reforms problems that are DESTROYING U.S. government and workability and dragging things into a moribund, slowly-collapsing, administrative slag-heap where these problems do nothing but compound on each other over time, because the high threshold for the amendment makes them unresolvable. I propose this - that an absolute majority of member of Congress (and I might remind everyone that a unicameral Congress got a majority of votes in thread, even though a number of proposals thereafter still refer to two chambers, or a separate Senate, as being relevant), and by "absolute majority," I mean in terms of a majority of all sitting members on a roster, not just those who attend the session, and either two-thirds of States Legislatures outright, or half of State Legislatures with good "regional distribution" (that would need to be defined in detail, but would be based on the geographical U.S. regions), and a majority in a popular referendum, but, if it proved to be of disastrous effect in application, it could be relatively easily repealed within the first ten years after being enacted.

Also, because you seem to have tuned me out on the issue, I still have to point out that I still regard Article 2 as null and void due to the conduct of debate and voting, and thus would see, if you railroaded this to the end and continued to ignore me, that a government would be created with no LEGALLY existing executive - and all of the administrative detriments, problems, and issues that would cause - and any individual using the "null and void pseudo-article" would be, instead, and illegal tyrant enacting powers they did not legally command or have access to and become guilty of treason, false powers of attorney on a national scale, and Constitutional fraud. I REALLY think we need to discuss in a more comprehensive way than either than just your dismissive and arrogant, "oh, just make an amendment later."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 12:25 AM, jnewt said:

 

The Congress, whenever two thirds of its members 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. The People, whenever a majority of people in a majority of states shall deed it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of two thirds of the population, 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 approved by two thirds of the population at the time of the next congressional election after the proposal of the amendments.

 

 

Dashed up something quickly on mobile, if anyone wants to flesh this out a bit I would be glad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

I personally believe that Constitutional Amendments have become FAR too difficult to enact, thus crippling and stymying all NEEDED and DESPERATELY CRIED OUT FOR reforms in the Constitutional System in the U.S. as it stands, making even reform NECASSASSARY to address and solve base, fundamental, and reforms problems that are DESTROYING U.S. government and workability and dragging things into a moribund, slowly-collapsing, administrative slag-heap where these problems do nothing but compound on each other over time, because the high threshold for the amendment makes them unresolvable. I propose this - that an absolute majority of member of Congress (and I might remind everyone that a unicameral Congress got a majority of votes in thread, even though a number of proposals thereafter still refer to two chambers, or a separate Senate, as being relevant), and by "absolute majority," I mean in terms of a majority of all sitting members on a roster, not just those who attend the session, and either two-thirds of States Legislatures outright, or half of State Legislatures with good "regional distribution" (that would need to be defined in detail, but would be based on the geographical U.S. regions), and a majority in a popular referendum, but, if it proved to be of disastrous effect in application, it could be relatively easily repealed within the first ten years after being enacted.

Also, because you seem to have tuned me out on the issue, I still have to point out that I still regard Article 2 as null and void due to the conduct of debate and voting, and thus would see, if you railroaded this to the end and continued to ignore me, that a government would be created with no LEGALLY existing executive - and all of the administrative detriments, problems, and issues that would cause - and any individual using the "null and void pseudo-article" would be, instead, and illegal tyrant enacting powers they did not legally command or have access to and become guilty of treason, false powers of attorney on a national scale, and Constitutional fraud. I REALLY think we need to discuss in a more comprehensive way than either than just your dismissive and arrogant, "oh, just make an amendment later."

I'm not sure which proposals you're talking about that have referred to two chambers of congress; I see that @jvikings1 used Article 5's exact text instead of the base text that I provided (which modified the actual text to refer to a single chamber of congress), but I believe that was just a simple mistake and I can't recall any other instances of someone referring to more than one chamber of congress (though if there have been, please point them out, as they would need to be addressed/changed). As for your proposal on Article 5, like I previously stated, you need to make an exact proposal in a clear and concise manner (like @jvikings1 and I have done) in order for it to be considered (since it is such a short Article, we need exact wording).

[deleted]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Congress, whenever two thirds of its members 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 Congress.

The People, whenever a majority of its citizens in a majority of states shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of two thirds of the population, 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 approved by two thirds of the population at the time of the next congressional election after the proposal of the amendment(s).

 

@Thunder I reorganized and reworded it a bit, but it's still gets across the same idea right? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jnewt said:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of its members 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 Congress.

The People, whenever a majority of its citizens in a majority of states shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of two thirds of the population, 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 approved by two thirds of the population at the time of the next congressional election after the proposal of the amendment(s).

 

@Thunder I reorganized and reworded it a bit, but it's still gets across the same idea right? 

Please read my PM. Also, I need a few hours to paraphrase my proposal, but still get the core point across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, jnewt said:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of its members 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 Congress.

The People, whenever a majority of its citizens in a majority of states shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of two thirds of the population, 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 approved by two thirds of the population at the time of the next congressional election after the proposal of the amendment(s).

 

@Thunder I reorganized and reworded it a bit, but it's still gets across the same idea right? 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jnewt Still trying to work on a way to concisely reword mine without losing any of the idea or content behind it (the second part of that is the real trick).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patine said:

@jnewt Still trying to work on a way to concisely reword mine without losing any of the idea or content behind it (the second part of that is the real trick).

Ok that's fine, I'll wait until tomorrow to put it up for a vote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine I'm going to post the poll tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jnewt said:

@Patine I'm going to post the poll tonight

Wait! I want to ask @vcczar for advice on rewording the damned thing first when he next logs in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Wait! I want to ask @vcczar for advice on rewording the damned thing first when he next logs in.

He is a professor, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Patine said:

Wait! I want to ask @vcczar for advice on rewording the damned thing first when he next logs in.

Ok, I'll wait a little while longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 3:41 PM, Patine said:

I personally believe that Constitutional Amendments have become FAR too difficult to enact, thus crippling and stymying all NEEDED and DESPERATELY CRIED OUT FOR reforms in the Constitutional System in the U.S. as it stands, making even reform NECASSASSARY to address and solve base, fundamental, and reforms problems that are DESTROYING U.S. government and workability and dragging things into a moribund, slowly-collapsing, administrative slag-heap where these problems do nothing but compound on each other over time, because the high threshold for the amendment makes them unresolvable. I propose this - that an absolute majority of member of Congress (and I might remind everyone that a unicameral Congress got a majority of votes in thread, even though a number of proposals thereafter still refer to two chambers, or a separate Senate, as being relevant), and by "absolute majority," I mean in terms of a majority of all sitting members on a roster, not just those who attend the session, and either two-thirds of States Legislatures outright, or half of State Legislatures with good "regional distribution" (that would need to be defined in detail, but would be based on the geographical U.S. regions), and a majority in a popular referendum, but, if it proved to be of disastrous effect in application, it could be relatively easily repealed within the first ten years after being enacted.

@vcczar Can you please offer some advice to reword this proposal in a clear, concise, and less wordy way, while keeping it's content intact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar Can you please offer some advice to reword this proposal in a clear, concise, and less wordy way, while keeping it's content intact?

I'll admit, this is difficult to condense this. It's like a word soup. But here I go:

"Constitutional Amendments have become too difficult to enact, crippling any chance of necessary reforms. Without these popular reforms, the US risks destroying itself as the government continues to progress towards a moribund, slowly-collapsing, administrative slag-heap. In the end, these problems compound on each other over time. Currently, the high threshold for passing a new amendment makes this problems unresolvable.  Therefore, I propose this: 

That a majority of all sitting members of Congress (not just those who attend the session) and either two-thirds of States Legislatures outright, or half of State Legislatures with good "regional distribution", and a majority in a popular referendum. If it proved to be of disastrous effect in application, it could be relatively easily repealed within the first ten years after being enacted."

The main thing you need to do is employ more end punctuations. These are rests so that people can take in the information that you've given in a sentence. You also want to cut down on parentheses as much as possible, since this interrupts the actual sentence. Basically, you never want a reader to have to reread a sentence. You also have to know your audience, which means simplifying the language or elevating it, depending on who you want to both read AND understand what you are saying with absolute clarity. I'm sure someone else could edit this even better than I could, since I'm not pedantic enough to work towards absolute concision. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

I'll admit, this is difficult to condense this. It's like a word soup. But here I go:

"Constitutional Amendments have become too difficult to enact, crippling any chance of necessary reforms. Without these popular reforms, the US risks destroying itself as the government continues to progress towards a moribund, slowly-collapsing, administrative slag-heap. In the end, these problems compound on each other over time. Currently, the high threshold for passing a new amendment makes this problems unresolvable.  Therefore, I propose this: 

That a majority of all sitting members of Congress (not just those who attend the session) and either two-thirds of States Legislatures outright, or half of State Legislatures with good "regional distribution", and a majority in a popular referendum. If it proved to be of disastrous effect in application, it could be relatively easily repealed within the first ten years after being enacted."

The main thing you need to do is employ more end punctuations. These are rests so that people can take in the information that you've given in a sentence. You also want to cut down on parentheses as much as possible, since this interrupts the actual sentence. Basically, you never want a reader to have to reread a sentence. You also have to know your audience, which means simplifying the language or elevating it, depending on who you want to both read AND understand what you are saying with absolute clarity. I'm sure someone else could edit this even better than I could, since I'm not pedantic enough to work towards absolute concision. 

 

 

Thank-you, and I'll try to keep that in mind.

Is this wording good for a proposal, @jnewt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Patine said:

Thank-you, and I'll try to keep that in mind.

Is this wording good for a proposal, @jnewt?

Yes, that should work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Congress, whenever a majority of all its sitting members (and not just those members who attend the session) shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by either of the following methods:

  • two-thirds of State legislatures outright, or,
  • one-half of State legislatures with good "regional distribution" and a majority in a popular referendum

I rewrote it just to make it look more like the other proposals. Is this still what you proposed, or did I inadvertently change it? @Patine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jnewt said:

The Congress, whenever a majority of all its sitting members (and not just those members who attend the session) shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by either of the following methods:

  • two-thirds of State legislatures outright, or,
  • one-half of State legislatures with good "regional distribution" and a majority in a popular referendum

I rewrote it just to make it look more like the other proposals. Is this still what you proposed, or did I inadvertently change it? @Patine

There's also the first ten-year period after enactment when repeal is much easier, in case it's judged to have been a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Patine said:

There's also the first ten-year period after enactment when repeal is much easier, in case it's judged to have been a mistake.

Ok, I'll be sure to include that in the poll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thunder said:

Any chance of it closing soon?

Yea, sorry. I was actually just about to start discussion on the next Article. I've been on vacation so that's why this has been halted for the time being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The proposal and discussion period for Article 6 will now begin. I propose to retain Article 6 as-is (aside from minor modifications making the article more appropriate, such as changing "Senators and Representatives" to "members of Congress" because of the fact we have adopted a unicameral legislature).

 

@NYrepublican @ThePotatoWalrus @Patine @TheLiberalKitten @vcczar @pilight @Sunnymentoaddict @WVProgressive @Thunder @Reagan04 @Ido @Caprice @Hestia11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×