Would you support mandatory constitutional conventions?

[Leviticus]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

 

[Votto]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

The Deep State prefers appointing 9 black robes determine what the Constitution really says.

Jefferson blew a gasket after the Madison vs. Marbury ruling that virtually gave SCOTUS full authority to determine what is Constitutional and what is not.

 

[lg325]

Interesting idea .I like the Constitution the way it is ,but I can see something like what you posted to be viable.

 

[Votto]

Na, it's much easier just letting Chairman Xiden declare edicts.

 

[Oddball]

Jefferson also recommended "refresh(ing) the tree".

I'd be more for that than a fresh concon.

 

[fncceo]

Thomas Jefferson suggested...

... indentured booty calls.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

No thanks. There's not one person in all of our local, state, federal govt that is qualified to remove even one punctuation mark in that document.

 

[candycorn]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

Fully in favor of it. Once every 75 years or so, pop the hood open and take a look at what works and what doesn't work. Propose amendments and let the States decide.

 

[fncceo]

The United States Constitution is a major road block ...

... to turning this country into Venezuela.

 

[Markle]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

Not just no but HECK NO!

Can anyone imagine how many thousand pages it would be and no one had even read the tomb?

Personally, I never heard that Thomas Jefferson said our Constitution should be re-written every ten years. If he had, why would he have worked so hard to make it as perfect as possible?

 

[Markle]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

Fully in favor of it. Once every 75 years or so, pop the hood open and take a look at what works and what doesn't work. Propose amendments and let the States decide.

We've had that for 250 years.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

No. They are difficult to arrange for a reason.

 

[candycorn]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

Fully in favor of it. Once every 75 years or so, pop the hood open and take a look at what works and what doesn't work. Propose amendments and let the States decide.

We've had that for 250 years.

No we haven't.

 

[JoeMoma]

No thanks. There's not one person in all of our local, state, federal govt that is qualified to remove even one punctuation mark in that document.

Thing is what is and is not "constitutional" evolves even without actually changing the text in the constitution.

 

[Markle]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

Fully in favor of it. Once every 75 years or so, pop the hood open and take a look at what works and what doesn't work. Propose amendments and let the States decide.

We've had that for 250 years.

No we haven't.

Really? Who knew?

How did all those other amendments become part of our Constitution?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

Fully in favor of it. Once every 75 years or so, pop the hood open and take a look at what works and what doesn't work. Propose amendments and let the States decide.

You are forgetting the states have their own constitutions......

 

[Gdjjr]

Be careful what you wish for and keep in mind lawyers don't care what a constitution says- no matter how many times it's talked about- the "evolution" (pointed out above), is through intentional misinterpretation owed to evolution?, which is pure bullshit- words mean things or they don't and politicians and lawyers are the last people you'd want intentionally (read legally) making up defintions- we'd be better served holding the criminals accountable every 2 years- maybe after a few cycles, the crooks might get the message- but I wouldn't count on that either- there is no accountability for the crooks so why would they even worry about it-

 

[Blues Man]

The Constitution includes the procedures for amending it. I see no reason to require conventions

 

[2aguy]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

No....I think the process we have is good enough......that way you don't get radical changes based on temporary emotions.

 

[Votto]

Thomas Jefferson suggested when the basic Constitution was being written that there needed to be a regular constitutional convention in order to ensure that the constitution always was kept up to date to the needs of the nation and the people at that time. His suggestion was that a mandatory convention be held every 10 years.

I think that this is a good idea. I also believe that the constitutional convention should be viewed the same as jury duty with a lottery system choosing the delegates and that all Americans who are registered to vote be eligible for selection. This would give the American people a more direct say in any amendments and would simp not simply rely on politicians and political Insiders.

Proponents of this type of mandatory convention typically picture it as being much like jury duty where the people serving as delegates are paid a small stipend per day and have their travel and accommodations paid. The convention would be held for at least 3 days, but there is no mandate that any actual amendments be passed. The idea would be that time is given to at least introduce and debate possible amendments, or even a page one rewrite of the entire Constitution.
This differs from how Thomas Jefferson envisioned it, as he supported completely rewriting the Constitution every 10 years on a mandatory basis.

No....I think the process we have is good enough......that way you don't get radical changes based on temporary emotions.

Could you imagine a Constitution that the Dims would create today?

The only freedoms we would have would be to kill off our unborn and take any illicit drugs we can get our hands on.