Today Rachel brought up the convention of states, which is super cool. I have been following it for a while, but I never looked a whole ton into it. I want to know all of your opinions on it.
Here is the COS website:
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
I didn't feel like the website really touched much on what the goal of the convention is, so I looked up a couple articles. Here are the articles I read:
http://wilsontimes.com/stories/Power-to-the-people,79974
http://www.wral.com/republican-lawmakers-want-convention-of-states-to-propose-constitutional-amendments/16512121/
If you all happen to agree with it, there's a rally on Friday at the capitol (the one in SLC, not in DC) from 12:00-3:00. I personally am crossed. I really agree with the idea, but there definitely appear to be faults in it. I definitely would like to know what you all think of it.
Here's my two cents. I am a little bit crossed as well. The government is not working the way the founding fathers wanted it to, so it does need fixing, but I don't really think that we need to amend the constitution to do that.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, most of the land that is considered "Federal land" and owned by the federal government should not be federal land. It is in fact illegal for that land to be considered federal. It is "State" land that can only have federal buildings or things like that built on it at the express permission of the state. Instead the feds just take the land and build on it. The states don't intervene because "Oh, they're the feds! We should just let them do what they want. In fact, we should ask them for permission before we use our land."
NO! In this case the states should stop being pushed around and stand up for what is legally theirs, and ours!
Amendments are powerful things, and once they're there, it's really hard to get them to be abolished. So we have to be careful when we consider amending our constitution. I'm not saying that amendments are bad, heck, I'm a devout supporter of the second amendment myself! In fact, there are only two amendments that I don't like and they are the 16th and 17th. The 16th says that the government can tax from any source based on income, so yeah, I don't like that one, and the 17th turns us into a democracy by putting the vote directly in the hands of the people, so I don't like that one either. (If you want to study those amendments I would recommend reading the book "1913.")
These two amendments are great examples of how dangerous amendments can be. We need to be super careful when it comes to amendments. Using an amendment to fix the government seems a little bit drastic in this case to me, but sometimes drastic things are necessary. I'm just not sure if this one is.
I agree with you. I think the main reason for an amendment in this scenario would be to create term limits for senators and Representatives so we don't end up with more power hungry politicians heavily influencing the government that keep getting re-elected (kinda like Orrin Hatch, haha). I think an amendment created by the convention is reasonable for this. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't pass through legislature since it would be affecting them negatively. Trump has made promises of creating term limits for them. I do not want to see another unnecessary executive order, so I think the states should be doing this. However, it does seem dangerous, because I don't know who will be in charge of writing the amendment and what else they could put in it, and how the ratification works. I definitely need to put more research into it.
DeleteHave they written the amendment? And the government is actually regulated by the constitution, and so amendments are for fixing, and defining the governments power.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking into it a little more, it seems like they need to call the convention first, then the states will elect their delegates which will vote on the ratification of the amendment. All states have an equal amount of delegates, which I am not a fan of. That means that Wyoming and California would get equal say in the matter and Wyoming has like 2 people.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what you're addressing Josh, but I did know that. That's why the people are allowed to do this. Sorry if you weren't talking to me haha
By the way, I don't believe they have written the amendment. I think that is also going to happen after the convention is called. I personally think that is bad planning. People are more likely to fight for something if they know exactly what they're signing up for
DeleteI was addressing Caden when he said, "Using an amendment to fix the government seems a little bit drastic in this case to me, but sometimes drastic things are necessary". Basically laws, or bills, are for restricting government agencies, or people, and amendments are for restricting the government, so it is actually very normal, and far from drastic.
DeleteBut I don't mind that you responded.
DeleteAmendments also also are for other things that the congress thinks should be more permanent than a bill, and there I can see why there would be concern to how radical it is for something to be an amendment, but restricting the government is always appropriate through an amendment.
DeleteThe reason I said that an amendment is drastic is because we could simply get rid of laws and end up in the same place. We have too many laws, and to many laws in pending, if we get rid of quite a lot of them then we could fix the problem without going to the trouble of making an amendment.
DeleteI really need to pay more attention to these responses, I'm falling behind.
That is actually the problem. There is nothing limiting the congressmen. I don't think there is a law that says that congressmen can run however many times they want. If there is one please give me a link or something. The problem is the absence of one limiting the amount of times they can run for office.
DeleteThere are some definite defects here and a law might fix that, I know this is a little contradictory to my last post but after some thinking, this is the kind of thing that a law could be used for. Amendment no, law maybe.
DeleteAlso what laws would you plan on repealing?
DeleteI think there would have to be an amendment to put term limits on congressmen. It's a big enough item and it would be too easy to go back and forth with just a law. Knowing how it is ratified, I don't think it's dangerous either.
DeleteMy mom said it is not possible for this to be a law. The Supreme Court would overturn it and rightfully so, because if you want to change the requirements in the Constitution for congress, you have to amend the Constitution. Also the Convention of States can only be called to amend the Constitution, not to make laws.
DeleteWhy would you want this to be a law, and not an amendment? And I agree with Avonlea if it was a law Congress would just have to pass a bill with simple majority to get rid of it.
DeleteWhat are you talking about when you say "defects" Caden?
DeleteAnd just to clarify Caden, you think amendments are generally bad, because they are hard to reverse?
DeleteFirst, I did not know that it couldn't be a law, but it's one of those smack in the face "Duh!" answers now that you said it. Thank you both. I hope this nullifies the "Defects" question.
DeleteSecond, I do not think they are bad because of the hard reversal, I don't even "generally" think they are bad, I like all but two of them myself. (As I said in my first post.) The reason I said they were bad in this case was because I thought they were a little bit drastic. I no longer think so after this conversation, you two have really shone the light on these subjects for me. Thanks.
Just to clear things up. Convention of the states, don't really like it. Amendment to limit terms, go for it dude. (Or dudette."
DeleteI understand, haha. Ok, but how to impose term limits without CoS? Like I said before, it would never pass congress. The Supreme Court has already said it will not do this because they feel it is infringing on the rights of congressmen. The only way to accomplish this is through utilizing our right in Article V.
DeleteSo Caden, you don't like the idea of a Convention of states?
DeleteHonest to goodness, this our fault. We wouldn't need them to have term limits if we voted good people in. I think that is why we can't do this so easily, it was designed for us to use our agency correctly and if we don't then we reap the rewards.
DeleteEven good people can get carried away after such a long time. We discussed it in class. Being in Washington for so long makes you forget about the average citizen where you're representing and it gets hard to be able to listen to the people. Yes, our country could definitely vote better, but even if everyone in the country is voting for bad people, the rest of us can try to make it better by limiting their power.
DeleteCaden, earlier you said that you don't like the seventeenth amendment, because it "turns us into a democracy". Yet, you have said recently that we haven't used our agency correctly, and so as a result this is what we get. Do you think that the masses, which a good portion of is stupid(that's why our government isn't a total democracy), should be forced to suffer, because of a corrupt government? There are people who have chosen not to vote for people like Orrin Hatch. Should they suffer, because of the decision of others? So Caden, the fact is there are corrupt people in office currently who don't represent their people well. It is unlikely that will change. I'd like to play a round of Would you rather. So, would you rather have a Federal government made up of people that will not give up power, and not represent its people like it's supposed to, or have a convention of states that writes an amendment to the constitution that will help the congressmen represent their state better, or if you think there is a third option please tell. Sorry guys, that was probably long, and confusing if there is anything that needs clearing up, please feel free to ask.
DeleteIt was far from confusing to me, and thank you for asking!
DeleteThe founding fathers were the first to come up with checks and balances to keep the government balanced. Remember this last election? Chaos. Everybody rushing to get the guy they want in. That is not how voting for the senators was designed (Or the presidency for that matter). Think about it, the senators represent the states and the house represents the people. Obviously the people should vote for the house, and the senators should be voted for by the states. When the people vote for both it brings us closer to a democracy. That and now both the house and the senate represent the people, because the people elect both. Now who's fighting for the states? No one.
Now for the Would you rather game. I would rather the people understood how much power they are giving the people they vote in. If they understood that, then we wouldn't need an amendment and we wouldn't have bad people in because the people would be voting in guys who will righteously lead us.
It all comes down to the morality of the people (Paraphrase from Elder Christofferson). When the people are immoral then they will not vote in good people. The obvious question is, how do we fix it? We become a moral people. And that is something that we cannot force in with a law, an amendment, or even a Convention of the States. It is up to us to use our agency correctly.
Ok, that's a good idea.
DeleteSeeing as how the people don't understand how much power they are giving, and probably won't ever, isn't it necessary for an amendment to be put in place to make our government more effective?
While that is a good quote you can't make the choices for everyone, and most people don't want to change, so they will probably not choose good leaders. That is a problem, and this amendment can help fix it.
I agree that an amendment would force bad people out of office quickly, but it will also force out good people too. The problem is when we assume that the people don't want to learn, we are essentially giving up on our country. The only hope is to become a moral and educated people. The amendment would force out bad people, but what matters is who we put in after them, or even in the first place.
DeleteEven if good people got into Congress, then after staying in for so long they become detached from their constituents, and it is always good to get new ideas into Washington. It helps our country grow.
DeleteVery very true, but we should not force it into operation.
DeleteThe whole idea of the convention is that they will discuss, write, discuss, vote, etc on any and all amendments they want to propose. There would probably be more than one. In addition, while each state gets just one vote at the convention, regardless of population in that state, voting at the convention is only the first step. The amendment must then be ratified by the states, requiring a supermajority of 38 states. Again, each state just ratifies it, so states get equal power there, but getting to 38 states is going to be difficult. This process has never been used in the history of the US, but it is explained in Article 5 of the Constitution, and is a legitimate process for amendments. It will be interesting to see if they get it together. The amendment process, whether by this method or by the 2/3 majority of Congress followed by state ratification, is deliberately difficult so that the Constitution will not be changed on a whim.
ReplyDeleteCaden, I would enjoy your thoughts on the two amendments you don't like. But I have to add, you probably don't like either the 18th or the 21st as well. ;)
That makes a lot more sense. Everything I looked at (admittedly that's only 5 articles) just said every state has equal delegates. I still think they could be more specific about what they're calling the convention for, but that also makes more sense.
DeleteI just checked out the 18th and 21st amendments. It looks like they cancel each other out to me. What made you think I wouldn't like them?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThey do cancel each other out, so that's why I'm saying you probably don't like one or the other of them. Whichever one is a good idea, the other has to be a not so good idea. :) I was really just giving you a hard time, Caden. I'm really impressed with your thoughtful discussion on this issue. I'm impressed that you're aware enough of the amendments to the Constitution to have an opinion about which ones are good! And I'm impressed that you recognize the Federalist Papers as a good source for understanding the original intent of the Constitution. And maybe what I love most is that you're willing to tell your classmates that they taught you something and influenced your opinion. If we had leaders like you in our government, this would be a better country.
DeleteJust out of curiosity how long does everyone think the term limits should be?
ReplyDeletePersonally I think 2 senate terms is good. That amounts to 12 years, so they get to try to make a difference but they hopefully can't get too powerful. Senators who have been in the senate for a long time have a way better chance of getting into bigger positions than senators who haven't been in for very long, not necessarily because of their work, but because of the number of years they have been in. With House terms I haven't thought too much but if they wanted to make it equal it would have to be 6. I don't see why they would have to be equal, but one term is certainly too small. Then every two years the whole House would have to be resettled and that's pretty chaotic. I think 4 terms would be a good limit for Representatives. That's just my opinion though.
DeleteI heard they want to put limits on Supreme Court terms as well. What's everyone's opinion on that?
For everything but the supreme court I feel that the terms should be long enough for our representatives to get work done, but short enough to still be able to represent their state and not Washington. (Hello Orrin Hatch.)
DeleteI don't think there should be a limit on Supreme Court terms. The founding fathers put them in for life for a reason, not sure what it is but everything they did had a reason. If you do know what it is please tell me so I can give a better response.
Do you know if it was a good reason though? And have times changed, so that reason is not applicable to today's society? What if their reason was just because they didn't think about it? One could argue that they didn't put term limits on congressman for a reason.
DeleteI don't think Supreme Court should have term limits either. They are meant to be entirely judging the law, not to speak the voice of the people.
DeleteIn the beginning, not even the president had a term limit. George Washington started the two-term tradition and it was only when people didn't like FDR running again that this was amended. The founding fathers tried to leave things as free as possible in the Constitution when they wrote it, this is why they didn't have term limits on any position. It took away the choice of the people. It is only when we see other rights being infringed upon that we want to alter the Constitution. I think what we discussed in class today is enough to impose term limits.
Delete*term limits on congress
DeleteI think that Avonlea is right, but it seems to me that Caden thinks that if the founding father's did something with a reason unknown to us, then we should not change whatever they did.
DeleteI understand how my post makes you thing that but I do not think that they did it with an unknown reason, if you need to know the reason read the federalist papers, they're hard but they help. I'm sure that not all of the things the fathers put in are perfect, but they got really really close. I just feel that we should respect their judgement.
DeleteThey are very educated people, so their judgement does deserve respect, but I also think that there are things they could have done better, and some of their logic is faulty.
DeleteIn addition, the Constitution was written over 200 years ago. While the founding fathers were definitely inspired, some things aren't going to apply for centuries. They also did write Article V where it gives the right to a Convention of States.
DeleteWhile that is true I think they should have put restrictions on eminent domain, and they should have put term restrictions on Federal elected offices.
DeleteMaybe, but they were inspired by God, who is eternal. I will admit that the ability to change is good, but the principles are true no matter what year it is. You guys are right when it comes to times have changed, but the constitution is timeless because of the timeless principles it is built off of. Some things need adapting though, for example, the fathers would never have put drones into the picture, or satellites. There should be some adapting for that. When it comes to an amendment we need to make sure that we don't abolish one of the eternal principles, but abide by those principles even though we have different tech. Having better tech or living later doesn't make us smarter, we just have more to base our knowledge off of.
DeleteAlso Josh, What logic is faulty? And they did put a limit on the Federal elected offices and eminent domain, it's us.
If the the elected officials are good men then it wouldn't be good to send them away if his time was up, if they are good then we should let them keep leading well.
Yes, they were inspired by God, that is what I was talking about. I just think that sometimes it's God's will for things to change, which is why a way for that was put in the Constitution. I know we agree on that one. However, I don't think that making term limits would be changing the principles the Constitution was built upon. The times have changed as well. It is a bigger country with more corruption than there used to be. Back when the Constitution was written, it may have been easier for them to keep up with the people and hear their voices. It's a lot harder now with over 300 million citizens. Even good people get carried away. It's hard when you're being spoiled to represent the average citizen or minorities, which congressmen are also supposed to represent. Term limits on congressmen will give more freedom back to the people. Yes, it takes away choice to vote for that person, but we wouldn't get any Orrin Hatchs. It would level the playing field so hopefully people who represent their people well would end up in the more powerful positions rather than people who have seniority.
DeleteYes, and while the principles may be true the way it shows in our government may be able to be improved.
DeleteAs far as faulty logic goes I think that there isn't anything that is an inalienable right except for freedom of religion. Freedom of speech is necessary in a government that is democratic in almost anyway, but it I don't think it is something everyone is entitled to automatically. There is no need for Free speech in a righteous monarchy.
What political offices do you refer to when you say they did put term limits on them. And as far as Eminent Domain goes they set it up, so that the government could give you, what they think is fair, compensation for your land, and then keep it for public use.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, Caden, you seem to be saying that it is our fault that our government is, so bad. I am arguing that we should put appropriate limits, and restrictions on things, so that it's not even possible for our government to become bad. Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
Whoa hold up. Could you expound on what you mean by freedom of speech not being an inalienable right?
DeleteNo one is entitled to Freedom of Speech.
DeleteDo you think they shouldn't be or just aren't?
DeletePeople are only entitled to Freedom of Speech, because of the constitution.
DeleteSo you think Freedom of Speech isn't a God-given right?
Deleteno, but Freedom of religion is.
DeleteIsn't just liberty in general an unalienable right? Wouldn't Freedom of Speech be included in that?
DeleteWell if liberty was a right, then I would say that Free Speech is a part of that.
DeleteSo liberty isn't a right?
DeleteYes
DeleteIf liberty weren't an unalienable right then what's the point of life? Would you give someone a gun and expect them to be able to shoot it without the bullets? A quote you will probably disagree with from Thomas Hobbes is “The right of nature...is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will for himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life"
DeleteThe point of life is to be happy.
DeleteI guess technically that is true. You can't have true happiness without liberty though.
DeleteThe point of life is to live righteously and return to god and to do that we have to choose our actions.
DeleteThe freedom of religion requires freedom of speech. Religion is the sharing of our beliefs in God, how can we do that without freedom of speech?
DeleteIn the end, the reason we are doing what we do is to be happy. However you cannot be happy without liberty.
DeleteWhat about life? I personally would prefer not to be shot on the whim of a cop, or anyone, because I "Could have" been a threat.
DeleteHow about liberty? Does the government have the right to take my stuff because I can't use it right? Liberty is quite an important right.
DeleteI think the best thing to do is define a god given right. Quote by Ezra Taft Benson.
Delete"Rights are either God-given as part of the divine plan, or they are granted by government as part of the political plan. If we accept the premise that human rights are granted by government, then we must be willing to accept the corollary that they can be denied by government. I, for one, shall never accept that premise. We must ever keep in mind the inspired words of Thomas Jefferson, as found in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Here's the link to that whole speech.
Deletehttps://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson_constitution-heavenly-banner/
Within Freedom of religion is some Free Speech.
DeleteYes the government does have a right to take away your stuff if your not using it right. If you're attacking people with knives, then it is appropriate for the government to take them away.
Why can't you have true happiness without liberty?
"keep in mind" not accept.
DeleteOkay, they can take the knives if I use them incorrectly, but I was meaning that they could take them away because I had the ability to. I have no intention of using them incorrectly, the government can't judge on how I will use them.
DeleteWhy can't we have happiness without liberty? How would you feel if you had your stuff taken away, had all means of self defense destroyed, and so strict laws that you are pretty much put in a box? That is life without liberty. Liberty is essentially all freedoms wrapped in one. It is the ability to live your life the way you want to, (Happily) until you infringe on others rights.
DeleteThis Saturday I actually will be debating an amendment to the constitution that would put a two term limit on senators, and a four term limit on representatives in Student Congress, and I think that is probably the best way to go. I don't know about the Supreme Court terms though. If they had them too short then whatever party had control of the senate at the time would control the supreme court.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, the Convention isn't just to create term limits. There are other ways they feel the federal government has too much power. Here are the 6 ideas they put in the amendment in a simulation they did:
ReplyDelete1. The public debt shall not be increased except upon a recorded vote of two-thirds of each house of Congress.
2. Term limits on Congress
3. Limiting federal overreach by returning the Commerce Clause to its original meaning
4. Limiting the power of federal regulations by giving an easy congressional override
5. Require a super majority for federal taxes and repeal the 16th Amendment
6. Give the states (by a 3/5ths vote) the power to abrogate any federal law, regulation or executive order.
They can be found on the CoS website in my post. I disagree with some of them while I agree with others. What are all your opinions on them?
What ones don't you like Avonlea? I think that they look good.
ReplyDeleteMainly I need to look into all of them more. I think that congress should have to approve regulations in the first place rather than having to override them actually. And at first when I was writing that comment the 3/5ths vote seemed a little crazy to me, but after thinking about it I think it's a good idea. I also think they could be more specific about the taxes, since the 16th amendment would be replaced by something similar
DeleteI think that an increase in Custom Duties Tax, and in sales tax would probably be the best way to replace it.
DeleteAlright you guys...return to your corners. I love it that you're all thinking and talking and researching about this. I want to have the whole class participate, and I'd like to be able to keep tabs on the discussion a little better than I can on the blog. What we're going to do it this: on Wednesday, we'll have time to discuss this. I will make it the first thing we do so that there will be time for it. I want you each to do two things: First, I want you to read or watch the following: https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/ezra-taft-benson_constitution-heavenly-banner/ Second, write down the thoughts you'd like to share with the class so that you can present them in an orderly way. Thanks for being so great about discussing things in a kind way.
ReplyDeleteOh, sorry I just barely saw this.
DeleteSame. :X
DeleteAlso, I already posted that story earlier.
DeleteHi guys I'm testing bc the commenting is supposed to be turned off
ReplyDeleteClearly it didn't work haha
Delete