Talk:Second Constitutional Convention of the United States

floated

Needs infobox. Probably not a stub. Needs picture. Writing needs work.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It might also mention some proposals on how the "Second" Constitution would differ from the current one. Bms4880 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, as I come across it, I'll add it. General idea: the new one should look like the old one, but with particular problems fixed. I think what these professors are talking about (and there isn't tight agreement by any means) is things like term limits for officials (congresspersons -- 2 to 6 yrs possibly), a big issue since (in my view) congresspersons ahve figured out ways to engineer things so once elected, they're in office for life unless they (1) choose to resign or (2) utter the words "social security" in anything they say or (3) have their picture appear in any newspaper with the word "sex" or "scandal" in it. It means Congress is no longer dependent on the people -- a big thing that the Framers wanted -- since today 90%+ of congresspersons seeking reelection are reelected. And a whole slew of problems result. There has been some talk of having a (peacetime) balanced budget amendment. There are questions about the judiciary: Supreme Court justices (ie 15 or 18 yr term limits) as a way of dealing with the issue of preventing justices from timing their exits from the Supreme Court when there is a president in office consistent with the justice's views. There might be stricter rules about campaign contributions; fixing gerrymandering; possibly moving from a two party to a multiparty system; DC residents having a representative in Congress. Levinson sees the balance in the Senate as highly skewed to favor small rural states which shifts $$ away from states like NY or California or Texas (eg Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere). Issues such as the presidential primary system -- right now Iowa and New Hampshire have theirs first (by state law) which gives voters a disproportionate share of power to winnow down the pool of presidential candidates. Some favor more of a parliamentary arrangement in which the legislature & executive branches work more closely together, since this permits more rapid action and prevents gridlock (usually), although there are problems with this too (the idea of balance of powers, as you know, is to check an ambitious faction or party from getting too much power). My own personal POV is that the constitution's foreign policy function is counterproductive (Vietnam, Gulf War II, partisan interests trumping what's best for the nation), and I have a big problem with the idea of citizenship which I've written about elsewhere. And there are lots of little tweaks with the current Constitution that are long overdue, such as problems of succession, what if issues (such as what if a bomb takes out the entire Congress, what will happen then? -- Levinson's question I think). Overall, I think there is a consensus view among wide swaths of the public that government is dysfunctional, broken, corrupted by $$, and a disillusionment that the current system can fix itself.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM: talk pages are not for discussing the subject of the article, but the article itself. This is not the place to debate whether or not a 'Second Constitution of the United States' would be a good idea. Robofish (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes you're right sometimes I get ranty-ish on a talk page but I think the article itself is fair, neutral, unbiased, and sometimes me -- stating my biases -- can help all of us see whether any of them have carried forth into the article. I'm a big believer in transparency including exposure of my own biases.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

quotation from The Guardian

I don't think the following statement belongs in this article:

A report in 2012 in The Guardian suggested that America's "system of governance" seems gridlocked and "ill-equipped to deal with the nation's problems."–Paul Harris (19 November 2011). "'America is better than this': paralysis at the top leaves voters desperate for change". The Guardian. Retrieved 2012-01-17. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

First, it is the opinion of a writer for a British newspaper and therefore has no bearing at all on the constitution of the United States. In what way is it relevant that a British journalist thinks the government of the United States is broken? Unless one of the options being discussed is adopting a Westminster-style parliamentary government and applying for membership in the Commonwealth, I don't see how the UK is involved at all in this issue. Our shared language and heritage don't necessarily mean we share everything.

Second, it seems to me that this quotation does nothing but add support to the argument that the constitution should be rewritten; such a point of view can hardly be considered neutral and therefore is not appropriate in a WP article, particularly one on a controversial subject. If it were balanced by an analogous opinion from another British journalist that our government is not irretrievably broken, that would be better, but I still question how the opinion of a foreign journalist is relevant.

I am, in fact, going to remove that statement; if another editor is determined to reintroduce it, I hope he or she will address the concerns I have expressed here.

I know this page is not the place to discuss the subject of the article, but in the interest of transparency I want to say that although I am aware of the serious problems facing our country, I neither support nor oppose the adoption of a new constitution. I am making this change not because I oppose the subject but because this quotation is irrelevant in its foreign source and highly questionable in its neutrality.--Jim10701 (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally I do not see how it matters whether a journalist is British or American; the nationality of the journalist is irrelevant, in my view. There may be an added benefit as well -- the perspective of a global view (comparing many different countries, governments, etc) may be better than an insulated American one. And the report was directly addressing the problems with government in the United States. The Guardian is a highly respected internationally-renowned newspaper which is read on many continents; it may surpass the New York Times in terms of reputation and reach and credibility. And, the report directly dealt with the subject of the United States Constitution -- that it permitted gridlock. If you wish to add perspectives from other journalists (whatever nationality) that the US Constitution is working just fine and dandy, please be my guest.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw the photo of Constitution Hall -- it related to a possible Constitutional Convention that might have met there -- but that didn't happen. So it is fine I suppose to remove the photo.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Misnamed: 2nd Constitutional Convention NOT 2nd Constitution

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Yazan (talk) 06:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Second Constitution of the United States → Second Constitutional Convention of the United States – See discussion (procedural nomination). wctaiwan (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of this article discusses calls for a second constitutional convention, NOT a second constitution. Sanford Levinson may be an exception: He has called for "wholesale revision of our nation's founding document." A brief review of the links and references in this article suggest that everyone else was calling for using a constitutional convention as a tool to draft amendment(s) to the current constitution. This is very different. I'm not an attorney, and I don't spend most of my time studying the news on legal decisions, etc. However, I find the title "Second Constitution of the United States" frightening. David Stewart, quoted in the Huffington Post, asserted that amendments "can be adopted by a new constitutional convention." He's mistaken: Article V of the US constitution allows a constitutional convention to draft amendments, which would however still have to be ratified by "three fourths of the several states."

Accordingly, following Wikipedia's policy to "Be bold but not reckless", I plan to change the title to "Second Constitutional Convention of the United States", then create a new entry under the current title consisting of "==Second Constitution of the United States==; #REDIRECT Second Constitutional Convention of the United States" -- after waiting a day or so for any possible objections. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting way of looking at things. I think you're right about changing the title. So yes be WP:BOLD. And, in the future, if a Second Convention ever happens, and if it drafts an alternative Constitution to be adopted, then perhaps we can change the redirect back?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support, agree with move idea, a sound proposal by the nominator Wctaiwan (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Er, to be clear, not my proposal at all. I only added the RM template. The actual proposer is DavidMCEddy. I don't know anything about the subject matter and thus have no opinion on the proposal. wctaiwan (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Me agree. Good proposal by DavidMCEddy.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why is there a photo of Catherine Crier?

What is the connection between this article and Catherine Crier? She's a former lawyer and judge, but there's no link between her career and constitutional history. Instead, she's famous for her discussions of criminal cases, such as the book she is holding in the photo. I think she and the photo should be deleted. Marzolian (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Check out this. CC is an advocate for a 2CC.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Completely Inaccurate Content for the Title

Almost all of this information refers to an Article V convention, not a second constitutional convention. Wolf PAC, Citizens for Self Governance, and Lawrence Lessig all OPPOSE a second constitutional convention, yet their main goal is to call an Article V convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.9.124 (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A Constitutional Convention would be to create a whole new Constitution. However, I do not run Wikipedia. I don't have the power to change the title. This page, however, needs a serious makeover. Despite saying "Not to be confused with an Article V state convention" or whatever it says concerning Article V, many of these cases ARE Article V convention calls, NOT Constitutional Convention calls. 98.212.98.58 (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see a need to change the title of this article, though the article does, IMO, need a makeover. I am (today) removing the material mentioned above by the thread-starter that belongs in the Article V convention article rather than this one. The scope of this article is and should remain about efforts to call a "2nd" Constitutional Convention for the purpose of rewriting the present U.S. Constitution (ie. making sweeping, wide-ranging, & fundamental changes to our nation's form of government). A thread was started by another editor a few weeks ago, immediately below this one, to discuss the issue. Please continue this conversation there, lest we have dueling threads plowing the same field. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Distinguishing Constitutional Convention from Article V Convention

I've been working on editing the article so that the reader is referred to the Article V Convention article and so that there isn't so much content in the article that isn't applicable to the title. Kaydell (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I tried making wholesale changes to the article to separate the constitutional convention material from the Article 5 material, but it was too many changes and my changes were rolled back, so instead, I entered a distinguish template and a split template to try to get some help on separating the content of the article into two articles, as it should be. Kaydell (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your work here. Can you clarify the distinction between an Article V Convention and a Second Constitutional Convention, preferably with sourcing? Are the two terms necessarily mutually exclusive? It's my understanding that an Article V Convention could turn into a Second Constitutional Convention (while it may not, it could, since we don't know what would go on at such a convention). Safehaven86 (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a good article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution). This is the 1st paragraph: "A Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention, or Amendments Convention, called for by two-thirds (presently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]" Footnote 1 is "The Constitutional Amendment Process". The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved November 17, 2015. The article mentions "constitutional convention" under the History heading; however, the 1st paragraph reference to "also called ...." makes it clear that "Second Constitutional Convention" is something different.

Actually, I don't think "Second Constitutional Convention" is that useful if it's referring to a meeting to rewrite the Constitution. To make the titles of the two articles more consistent, maybe this "Second Constitutional Convention" article could be titled something like "Convention to Rewrite the Constitution" -- and then the 1st paragraph here could include something like "also called a Second Constitutional Convention (not to be confused with an Article V Convention, Amendments Convention, or Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution)" (with link). Prosateur (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I like this idea. That way, If I read you correctly, this article would then be about efforts to bring about a constitutional convention to do a wholesale revision or total makeover of our nation's frame of government, much like the 1787 constitutional convention did. Drdpw (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Great clarification at the beginning (thank you!), but the distinction between the two is still muddied in some places in the article. You know, this could be a good time to address the idea of a "runaway convention" because it's a hot topic in some blogs right now -- as well as in some regular media sources -- because of the current coordinated effort to get enough states to call for an Article V Convention. Would it be worthwhile to suggest possible "heavy edits" to this article? Prosateur (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a citation by the Convention of States project, distinguishing between a constitutional convention (to rewrite the Constitution) and an Article V Convention (to propose amendments to the Constitution) "a constitutional convention is a horrible idea". Mistaking an Article V Convention from a constitutional convention is a common misconception. Some people think that an Article V Convention could be limited by the states that are applying for the convention, others fear that an Article V Convention (aka a convention of states) could become unlimited and could essentially become a constitutional convention. I propose that we keep both articles and have them reference each other in twin distinguish tags with the two articles referring to each other, along with both points of view whether or not an Article V Convention might evolve into, essentially, a constitutional convention.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaydell (talk • contribs) 21:12, March 30, 2016 (UTC)