Skip to main content

http://www.conconcon.org/

"On September 24th, people from across America and across the political spectrum will convene at Harvard University to discuss the advisability and feasibility of organizing towards a Constitutional Convention. The conference's lead organizers are both proponents and opponents of an Article V convention and we actively encourage the participation of those who support a convention and those who oppose holding a convention at all."

Well, Harvard ain't exactly chopped liver.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tommymac

    There can be no protection locally if we are content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 04:05:36 PM PDT

  •  if you see (0+ / 0-)

    john de herrera, tell him we said hello.

    "To sing the blues you got to live the dues and carry on" --S. Stills

    by bubbanomics on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 04:08:04 PM PDT

  •  What about it? (0+ / 0-)

    It's barely a comment, let alone a diary, but I'll let that pass.

    Why does it matter that this meeting is taking place at Harvard? It doesn't represent an official position of Harvard, that's just an appeal to authority.

    If we did have a Second Constitutional Convention, who would be on it? Would progressives even be allowed in the building, aside from serving drinks? Or would it be stuffed with tea partiers, eager to throw away all of our freedoms? A Constitutional Convention isn't a little chat. It produces amendments which go to the states and are more than likely to be adopted. It is more likely that we will get something very bad out of it than something good.

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 04:27:02 PM PDT

    •  For a person with so many questions, it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tommymac

      seems like you have a very closed mind on this subject. It's folks like you that make me feel like I have to tip toe into public on this site when ConCon is the subject. But I have posted several substantive Diaries already, with many, many more to come.

      Thank you.

      There can be no protection locally if we are content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 04:36:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)
        For a person with so many questions, it seems like you have a very closed mind on this subject.

        No, I have given you no indication that I have a closed mind. I simply disagree that a Constitutional Convention is a good idea.

        It's folks like you that make me feel like I have to tip toe into public on this site when ConCon is the subject.

        Now that's substantive, playing the victim.

        The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

        by A Citizen on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 04:41:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But you have given every indication (0+ / 0-)

          that your mind--while not entirely closed--is damned sure not open and already made up.

          Which is a shame, because you obviously don't have all the facts:

           

          A Constitutional Convention isn't a little chat. It produces amendments which go to the states and are more than likely to be adopted. It is more likely that we will get something very bad out of it than something good.

          This is a variation of the same nonsense, every damned time a diary on this subject is posted. And it's tiresome.  

          "It produces amendments which go to the states and are more than likely to be adopted".

          This is largely your opinion, and it certainly looks to me like anyone would be hard-pressed to change it.

          To begin with, it does not produce amendments, it convenes for the purpose of proposing amendments. And three fourths of the states must go on to approve them, should they actually be agreed upon as proposed amendments.

          "The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress "shall call a convention." Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body."--Alexander Hamilton

          It ain't up to Congress, nor can one party or entity stack the deck in their own favor.

          So please, do read up here before sharing erroneous information. This subject is too damned important for the repeated ignorance it generates on this blog.

          REPEAL the Telecomm Act & REVIEW this decision. NO journalist should be fired because their boss can't have the truth told.

          by lunachickie on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 05:30:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Could a ConCon go "rogue"? The last one (0+ / 0-)

            did, so of course it could. But for that inevitability, I would have no interest in the subject.

            It's just that I have complete confidence in a once every two centuries event to end up bringing out the best in us. I mean, even when the circus comes to town, we all perk up.

             And if we have the most important event in modern human history happening in our midst, and begging us to join?

            Yeah! I think that we'll be okay!

            There can be no protection locally if we are content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

            by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 08:33:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I'll keep telling the truth. (0+ / 0-)

            We hear so often from proponents of a Constitutional Convention that it's "just a chat, just a national discussion." But it is not. That's the truth, your calling it nonsense or tiresome doesn't change that. And yes, it is my opinion that the proposed amendments are likely to be adopted. But first, why are your opinions the only acceptable opinions? And my opinion is based on history, amendments that get to the states are likely to be adopted. And these amendments will be treated by the media as if they are far more than mere proposals. Your pointing out that these are propsosed amendments, rather than ratified amendments matters little. The ERA wasn't ratified by the states, but no one called it the Equal Rights Proposed Amendment while it was being sent to the states.

            Your mind is far more closed than mine. I haven't provided anything erroneous, I have simply disagreed with you.

            It ain't up to Congress, nor can one party or entity stack the deck in their own favor.

            Just because it isn't up to Congress doesn't mean the deck cannot be stacked. Only if the delegates were randomly selected could the deck not be stacked.

            The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

            by A Citizen on Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 09:09:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Really! (0+ / 0-)

          I told you where to find more info about where I'm coming from and you still prefer to be both anti and assertive without bothering to even look.

          There can be no protection locally if we are content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 08:22:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  What for? (0+ / 0-)

    When this subject is discussed, most Americans seem more frightened by the risks than enthused by the possibility of what a convention would come up with. That may be a sign of loss of confidence.

    What changes do the people who want a convention hope to propose? Most recent proposals to amend the constitution seem to be daft right wing ideas.

    There is quite a bit of obsolete text in the current document. It may be of some historical interest to know what the original apportionment of House seats was, but I can see no need to retain the provision more than two hundred years after it was in effect.

    A convention could make a valuable but not spectacular contribution.  It could do things like deleting the obsolete text, incorporate the amendments in the body of the constitution and update spelling, punctuation and section headings. This would produce a modern edition of the constitution, which did not alter the meaning.

    To try anything more ambitious and have it ratified, seems to need a general consensus which is not currently available.

    There is no man alive who is sufficiently good to rule the life of the man next door to him. Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris, M.P.

    by Gary J on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 06:48:52 PM PDT

    •  Well, let's see. How about if we make the (0+ / 0-)

      right of women to control their own bodies permanent by making "The Right to Privacy" explicit, and then follow that up with a very much needed populist overturning of Citizens United?

      Or why don't we just continue to go down the tubes?

      There can be no protection locally if we are content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Aug 08, 2011 at 08:41:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site