Should there be a Constitutional Convention?

[LBJ Revivalist]

One of the biggest debates recently and for over a century is the rigidity, or lack thereof, of the Constitution, and it's ability to accommodate to modern times and problems. Some are content with the way it is written and feel it simply needs to be interpreted to suit modern times; Others feel the Constitution should be followed as is and strictly to the letter. Still others feel this is dangerous, even those on the right, who argue that the Constitution is "not a suicide pact."

Obviously the biggest issue dividing left and right are questions of what is and isn't Constitutional, how the Constitution should be read, etc. Some on the right feel amendments such as the 16th and 17th should be repealed; Others feel the Constitution should be amended to clearly make Constitutional programs such as Social Security; Still others like Perry feel it should be amended to make the Judicial Branch overseen by the Legislative.

One way to fix things and bring all issues to the table, in a Constitutional fashion, would be to hold a Constitutional Convention and perhaps re-write some of it. I am not a Constitutional scholar; I do not know exactly how one would operate. I understand it would be an incredibly long and difficult process, but it seems, so would simply amending it. And people as we see disagree with various amendments as it is. A Constitutional Convention, though a hard process, could put many of these issues to rest and perhaps allow for a more united country in the aftermath of it.

[TJ in Oregon]

If we had one, would then just continue to interpret the constitution as we see fit? For example, let's assume the literalists won the argument and wrote an amendment saying that the literal text is all that can be considered rather than interpreting it to changing times. But, couldn't the living constitution crowd come back in a couple years and say that that's also not meant to be interpreted literally?

[Cincinnatus]

No.  There is an amending process for a reason, to respond to changing times.  "Elastic clause" is one of the first things you learn about in U.S. History.  I'm proud of what we have now, and the process in which it can be changed.  If I thought a serious convention was even possible today in America, maybe it would be interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes. I don't think any country should remain with the same constitution for over 200 years, there needs to be significant updates to face it with modern issues.

[The Mikado]

As a general principle, I think a mandated Constitutional Convention every 50-75 years would be a good idea.  The dead should not rule the living, and keeping their governing system out of misplaced nostalgia is silly.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

NO!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes. I don't think any country should remain with the same constitution for over 200 years, there needs to be significant updates to face it with modern issues.

What sort of updates?  Other than the minor issue of replacing the electoral college with some other system of electing the President, I don't see anything that needs to be updated.  There are some other minor things I wouldn't mind seeing be changed, but they aren't essential or because of the fact the Constitution is over two centuries old. While a convention is likely the only way the electoral college will be eliminated, I don't see it as a reason to call a convention.

As a general principle, I think a mandated Constitutional Convention every 50-75 years would be a good idea.  The dead should not rule the living, and keeping their governing system out of misplaced nostalgia is silly.

As I recall, there are some States whose constitutions require that a plebiscite be periodically be placed before the voters asking if they want a convention.  That seems a better safeguard to me than an automatic convention.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I don't see why now is a good time; I am not opposed to the idea of periodic conventions, but there should probably be a good reason.