The US Constitution (not the ship)

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

What purpose would a Constitutional convention held every twenty years really serve in this day and age if the same mechanisms for amending the Constitution are still in effect? Think about the time in which Jefferson lived versus today. We have a twenty four hour news cycle. News and information can spread around the globe almost in real time with radio and television and the internet. In his day the idea made sense. It would have provided people with an opportunity to convene and share ideas. Technology has rendered that point moot.

Resurrecting this thread -- taking up Brian249's observation that its "sadly abandoned"

LadyLuck does raise a really interesting question: If a Constitutional Convention were held-- what would happen?

No one knows. We haven't had one in more than two centuries. What happens when you call constitutional entities into session without recent precedent?

The French Revolution is one example. In 1789, the King of France needs more taxes. He calls the Estates General (which hadn't met since 1614) into session.

The Estates General had been divided into three "orders" -- the nobility, the clergy, and everyone else ("the third estate"). But there's no definition of just which order controls what . . . and they get to the Estates General, and they decide essentially that they're one body . . . and there's more of the Third Estate than anyone else.

And thus begins the French Revolution.

Moral of the story: beginning Constitutional processes that are not well understood at the outset is dangerous.

[profvolup]

Originally Posted by LadyLuck

What purpose would a Constitutional convention held every twenty years really serve in this day and age if the same mechanisms for amending the Constitution are still in effect? Think about the time in which Jefferson lived versus today. We have a twenty four hour news cycle. News and information can spread around the globe almost in real time with radio and television and the internet. In his day the idea made sense. It would have provided people with an opportunity to convene and share ideas. Technology has rendered that point moot.

But is the US news proliferating civics and deep debate?

Or is the news media aiming for ratings and hundreds of billions in advertising dollars, so it strives for conflict and simple logic?

That's why Ross Perot advocated the 'town hall' -- away from the advertising driven US media -- and even predicted the advancements in technology that would be coming. That's because he founded and ran EDS, and actually understood what he was talking about, when most of America did not.

He was well before his time.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by profvolup

But is the US news proliferating civics and deep debate?

Or is the news media aiming for ratings and hundreds of billions in advertising dollars, so it strives for conflict and simple logic?

That's why Ross Perot advocated the 'town hall' -- away from the advertising driven US media -- and even predicted the advancements in technology that would be coming. That's because he founded and ran EDS, and actually understood what he was talking about, when most of America did not.

He was well before his time.

True but most of the sheep I meet are just as blind and will follow the leader as long as they hear what ever placebo they want. American's in general IMO are getting less and less independent and more and more dependent. I am rather glad I will be dead in 20 years or so (I hope that long).

[Sir Honkers]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

I am rather glad I will be dead in 20 years or so (I hope that long).

When that sad day comes, I for one will miss Santee's pithy observations and will commemorate him in the RIP thread.

[SanteeFats]

Originally Posted by loosegoose

When that sad day comes, I for one will miss Santee's pithy observations and will commemorate him in the RIP thread.

Ahhh I didn't know you cared, thank you.

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by Estreeter

Make sure that

"The right too bear hamburgers" is an amendment

I have no desire to see you bare your hamburgers

On the other hand you could be referring ground bear meat which is way too gamey for my taste.

[SanteeFats]

You know the 2nd Amendment really has been misinterpreted. It was not written correctly. It should say we have the right to arm the bears.

[Faceman675]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

Ever eaten bear E?

As a Bruin I am highly offended

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

You know the 2nd Amendment really has been misinterpreted. It was not written correctly.

The language of the 2nd Amendment is odd: "X being the case, therefore Y".

As a matter of formal logic, the problem with this construction is that if X is not the case, then you negate Y.

So "Johnny is going swimming, he must take his bathing suit"

-- but if Johnny is not in fact going swimming, the second clause is invalid.

Its an odd way to write, and unsatisfactory. Had the aim been to establish a personal right to firearms, the Amendment could have said so, far more simply. The tortured construction is an indication that the 2nd Amendment was not understood by the folks writing it to be a simple matter "you can own a gun", but rather a much more complex issue of the relationship between State militias -- much discussed in the Constitution- and the Federal Government.

[whop]

Originally Posted by SanteeFats

You know the 2nd Amendment really has been misinterpreted. It was not written correctly. It should say we have the right to arm the bears.

I thought it was the right to wear T-shirts (the right to bare arms).