1 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: Casual Questions Thread
[deleted]
Comment by GeneReddit123 at 13/02/2025 at 14:10 UTC*
4 upvotes, 0 direct replies
The downside to this is once a convention is opened you are reliant on congress to see it out and anything could happen.
I know this is speculative because a CC has never happened in the entire US history, but is it really true about "reliant on Congress?" I thought the very point of a CC is when Congress is *not* co-operative and the States want to force an amendment anyways (if Congress had been co-operative, they'd just pass the amendment as usual and send it for ratification.)
This would be completely uncharted territory, but if (and that's a big if) the referees of the convention, whoever they might be (whether the SC or some state delegates) act in good faith, it will be intentionally separate from control of either Congress or the President.
I think the most likely (and probably intended by the framers) CC scenario is a (worse, and perhaps ultimate) version of the direction we're going today: a Federal government tyranny, with broken checks and balances, and the oligarchy in control of Congress refusing to allow a normal Amendment process.
Presumably, if it got so bad as to need a CC, there is already a severe constitutional crisis, and a CC would be a last-ditch attempt to avoid either a civil war, secessions, or the US simply dissolving itself. The product of a CC would likely be an entirely new Constitution, rather than only an additive amendment on top of an existing one, and likely would involve the complete dissolution and and re-filling of Congress and all its seats.
Comment by Moccus at 13/02/2025 at 13:57 UTC
5 upvotes, 0 direct replies
3/4 (38) of the states still have to ratify any amendments that are proposed by a convention, so there's still an extremely high bar that would prevent any radical stuff from becoming part of the Constitution.