Changing the Federal Constitution #1, 6-22-2010

I write not about mechanics. I have no copy of the federal constitution available to me. Calling a constitutional convention is a bitch, as it should be, and the process is set out in the Constitution. Go give it a read.

I come to write abut ideas. All I have left for sharing are words and ideas. That is all I have keeping me from complete irrelevancy as a human being. So let's get on with it.

First, I see communities opposed to the federal government on seriously material grounds. A constitutional convention allows a holistic approach to these problems, away from career politicians operating for partisan gain.

I recall Gore Vidal arguing against the idea of a constitutional convention. He thought such a convention would act against the Bill of Rights. No state constitutional convention has done so. We might get a better version of the Bill of /rights, too. I admit to presuming those elected to such a convention will not be fascistic ninnies. I assume, also, there will be debates and reason. My final backstop would be the necessity of approval by the whole nation. 

There may be an unintended consequence from even suggesting a constitutional convention. We may force a rational discourse about a vision of the country. A constitution is at bottom only a blueprint for a government allowing a civil society to go on about its business. We need to think how government will serve that end.

sch

[From 2022 back to 2010, I am less sanguine that we can have a rational discourse for a national vision. The 2022 elections leave me thinking there is hope, while the presence of Marjorie Taylor Greene in the House of Representatives leaves me pessimistic about the existence of fascistic ninnies. I will also note an undeclared premise: that we who would oppose fascism in America must confront those who tend towards fascism; we cannot just politely ignore them, for that allows them to breed. sch 12/18/22.]