Time for a constitutional convention

There are plenty of homegrown candidates to run for president we do not need to change the Constitution, the founding fathers had a good reason for not allowing it. Some enemy country could groom a candidate just to come to America, become a citizen to reak havoc on American soil, I say leave the that part of the Constitution alone.

Be very wary of amending the Constitution. The Electoral College is a target about a quarter of the time, and has been criticized on a regular basis since 1800. It may seem an anachronism, but it insures balance between large and populous States, and the smaller less densely populated. Eliminate the Electoral College, and the major campaigns would rarely leave the New England and California. It is good that candidates have to go out on the hustings and meet as many of the people as possible. Those small States sometimes do a better job of testing the candidate's metal than all of the large States combined.

No Constitutional Amendment is necessary to leave the Abortion, or the Gay Marriage issues to the various States. That is where the decision properly belongs as the Constitution was adopted at the end of the 18th century. Though some Republicans push for such an Amendment, I will argue against it to the bitter end. Leave the Constitution alone!

The "native born" requirement for President is a good one, and should not be tinkered with for anybody. That requirement kept Alexander Hamilton from the Presidency, and there haven't been many foreign born aspirants who are that good since. Leave Arnold to struggle with the problems of California, they are plenty large enough to keep Arnold busy for the next two decades.

After the Revolutionary War, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation, and the smart money was that the US wouldn't last until the end of the 18th century. The economy was in deep trouble. There was no effective military on land, or sea. Each State had its own currency, laws, and foreign policy. The central government had only the revenues that the various States would voluntarily offer-up. A group the the leading citizens were asked to meet and recommend changes to the Articles of Confederation. They scrapped the whole thing, and in secret sessions hammered out what we now call the Constitution. Since that time Amendments have from time to time been proposed, and occasionally adopted. It is a time consuming effort that often lasts for many years, and even then there is no guarantee that the Amendment won't be worse than the problem it supposedly is meant to fix. Remember the Volstead Act? Amending the Constitution in how Senators are selected radically changed the checks and balances written into the original Constitution. I'd like to repeal the 17th Amendment, but that isn't likely to happen.

It has been designed that the Constitution be difficult to ammend. I am happy for the difficulty.

I hope you are not under the impression than a constitutional convention can be limited in scope, MaryM. It just isn't true.

Has anyone seen the California political advertisements for changing the Constitution?

Amend for Arnold... it's almost unbelievable.

Piffka, I've seen that tasteless ad, and I was just stunned, what damn nerve that guy has.

Well, that's fine if you also wish to eliminate states as a whole. Good luck with that one - I don't think you'll get to far, and thank goodness. The electoral college is there because we are not just one big country with no internal borders. We are a collection of independant states. Without the electoral college, a few metropolitan areas would make all decision. And you believe your vote doesn't count now? Please, please, please read up and educate yourself on this issue - and then talk to your neighbors because this would truly be scary.

I totally agree with Asherman. A change in the Constitution is something to be dreaded, rather than welcomed. The longer I live, the more respect I have for the founding fathers and their foresight in forging this document. A few of the Amendments (e.g. the 12th and 13th) have been useful. Others, e.g.the Volstead Act, had to be repealed within a few years of being adopted. I hapen to be ineligible to run for President and I think that's a good thing.

Roger, I guess you are saying that a Constitutional convention could work over every aspect of the Constitution once convened. Thanks, I didn't know that.

Idaho, I think the electoral college was created because of the difficulty of counting individual votes as opposed to electing delegates in the horse and buggy days. It does also nicely give power to smaller states, but effectively disenfranchises millions. Gore should have won in 2000, by a whisker, and there shouldn't be any doubt that Bush won this year (barring the fraud scandel and the fact that he likely wouldn't be a factor if the 2000 results had depended on the popular vote.) Had Ohio flipped 80,000 voters Kerry would have won while coming up 3.5 million short in the popular vote......THAT was not the "intent of the founding fathers" I am sure.

Asherman, re: abortion my point is exactly yours, that the decision should lie with the states. It does not now. Vetting the idea of such an amendment, and its inevitable failure, would push towards resolution of the issue. Repealing the 17th amendment would make senators elected via State legislatures instead of popular vote........A radical change? I don't get you there. Thank you for your well written opinions!

Arnold is a self aggrandizing toady, and I voted for him. However I know a lot of immigrants who appreciate the United States, its traditions, the sacrifice its veterans have made, and its future more than some native borne, for instance, John Kerry.

The Repubs sneaking arnold in via a recall made California look like it really does have fruits and nuts living here, but I guarantee you arnold the jerk would never win in a conventional election. So he better enjoy the limelight while he can.

Mary,

Thank you for the kind words.

One can amend the Constitution without convening a Constitutional Convention. The process is spelled out in detail within the U.S. Constitution. See Article V for details. A Constitutional Convention is several orders of magnitude more serious approach to dealing with how our system of government is structured.

The elctoral college was specifically designed to balance the power between small and large States, between States with large populations and those with small populations. The popular vote, even in 1796 was known even before the electoral college met. Jackson had an almost unbelievable majority in the popular vote, but only managed a tie in the electoral college (the tie was broken in favor of J. Quincy Adams).

Actually, I believe that the matter of abortion still lies with the States, not the Federal government. Roe v. Wade, was a Supreme Court decision that effectively said that a State might not completely forbid abortion. It is left to the State legislatures to find laws that meet the US Constitutional test as per Roe v. Wade. Some might have very strict laws and others may adopt very lenient law. That's up to the various States. The attempt to make things like abortion and defining marriage federal policy, in my opinion is a bad idea.

The Constitution was the result of compromise and negotiation between a very wide set of interest groups. As no man trusted to be perfect, so all government is at constant risk. The Founders wanted to insure that no interest group could hold absolute power, nor so perpetuate itself that liberty would be lost. The checks and balances between the branches is well known. Inside the legislature the Constitution envisioned an even more complex set of balances. The House is chosen every four years by popular vote, and the number of representatives from each State is determined by its total population. That was the genesis of the Census. The Senate, on the other hand, is chosen for staggered six year terms and each State, large or small, has exactly two Senators. The Constitution left to the various States the means by which Senators were selected. The reason for that was that the House was expected to be very responsive to the citizenry at large, especially those who had little or no wealth, property, or political power. The Senate, on the other hand was designed to represent the interests of the States as component units of the whole. The Founders believed that those with wealth, property and political connections would pretty much control the various States. The result would be that there would be a balance between those who having little demanded redistribution of wealth in the House, and those more conservative folks who wish to preserve what they've already attained in the Senate. A very pretty system that worked quite well until the 17th Amendment in 1912. What changed was the popular demand to have greater control over both houses. Since that time, the result has been to throw the whole system out of balance in favor of those who having little demand a lot at the expense of those who have wealth and property. During most of the 19th century the Republican Party did pretty well for a lot of reasons. After the 17th amendment the Democratic Party's appeal to the "have nots" has made them much stronger. I'd like to see the balance of the original Constitution restored, but then I'm a Federalist.

I agree with him, too (on this point ).

But, Merry Andy... say it isn't so. Amend for Andrew has a good ring to it.

Thank you for that ringing endorsement, Piffka. But I really don't think my candidcy would fly. While Roosevelt promised a chicken in every pot, I'd probably be going around promising pot for every chick.

See... such a clever turn of phrase you've got... that'll win you a load of admirers.

Whew........Asherman thanks again!