Most of us know that the Constitution is amended by passing a bill through both houses of Congress by a two thirds majority and then being passed by three quarters of the states, but there is another way: two thirds of the states may call a constitutional convention to propose one or more amendments which once proposed would have to be approved by three quarters of the states. The second method has never happened; all twenty seven amendments have originated in the Congress.

The inherent danger of the second method are obvious: unlike a amendment proposed in Congress, a Convention could, in theory, completely re-write the Constitution. This is exactly what happened when a Convention was assembled to revise the Articles of Confederation (precursor to the Constitution).

If such a convention were held, and you could excise part of the Constitution (clause, article or amendment) and or add something to the Constitution, what would it be and why would you do it?

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

It´s a good way to start a civil war.
Get a bunch of states together, that supposedlly wanted to break away from the main stream, pass some nasty ammendment like re-instating slavery, anexing Canada,or some other crap, and voilá!! Instant civil war!!

Or,

You could join a few states where Charleton Heston hasn´t been yet, and draft up an anti-firearms ammendment!
Hummm, wait a minute... That would end up in civil war aswell!! Better leave it as it is. If it isn´t broke, don´t try to fix it.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

You can't think of a provision within the Constitution that should be removed or something that is wrong with the US that you would like to solve through an Amendment?

I know that a Constitutional Convention would probably cause a serious problems, which is why we have always stayed away from that path to Amendment passage.

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

How 'bout this for a provision within Article 2 (executive branch):

"In any war declared by the United States, the Commander in Chief, the President pro tem of the Senate, the Speaker of the House, and the Minority Whip of the House, must pick up a weapon and serve on the frontlines along with the soldiers who are charged with prosecuting the war."

Don't you think that would dramatically reduce the amount of needless wars this country declares?

__________________


The best daily political cartoons can be found here:

http://www.csmonitor.com/commentary/index.html

For me to know what needed to be changed, i would have to have a good insight on your constitution, wich i don´t.
But the anti-firearms was a legit and worthwhile ammendment. The problem is, like i said, it would cause a huge stirr. Imagine all the gun owners and those rednecks with shotguns getting angry at the government. I´d say you would have a war on your hands.


But it´s about time someone takes that first move, at least to legislate it some more.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

Ah ah ah ah, keep dreamin´, Startup!!!

The day such a thing gets passed is the day the entire city of Washington runs to the mountains!!!
:fart:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.