#Constitutional Convention

[here-a-lee-there-a-lee]

I hardly post anymore but here’s some james madison silliness!!!!

[pub-lius]

do you know how hamilton felt about the madison-hamilton fallout? just realized everything i know about it is from madison’s perspective

oho boy do i

This has actually been a subject of interest of mine since I read The Three Lives of James Madison by Noah Feldman (great book, highly recommend). In the study of Alexander Hamilton, this is a crucial event that would define his proceeding political actions.

For some background for those who may not know what anon is referencing, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were colleagues and "friends" (if you could call it that) from their time in the Confederation Congress until Hamilton submitted his financial plan to Congress, which was all in all about a decade. In that time, they lobbied for a convention to revise the Articles of Confederation, worked together in the Constitutional Convention, and wrote The Federalist papers together in defense of strong federal government together. The Federalist was like the manifesto of the Federalist party, which placed Hamilton at the head of that party, and, arguably, James Madison as well, until he switched to the Democratic Republican party.

Hamilton's experience was far different from Madison's, just in general, but especially when it came to close friendships between men. The closest relationship he had before James Madison was with John Laurens, who we know died tragically in 1782. Although we are all aware of my feelings on rat bastard Ron Chernow, I thought that this excerpt of his biography of Hamilton described this point very well.

"[Laurens'] death deprived Hamilton of the political peer, the steadfast colleague, that he was to need in his tempestuous battles to consolidate the union. He would enjoy a brief collaboration with James Madison... But he was more of a solitary crusader without Laurens, lacking an intimate lifelong ally such as Madison and Jefferson found in each other," (Alexander Hamilton, Chernow 172-73)

As Chernow mentioned, James Madison was already closely associated with Thomas Jefferson, who he kept well appraised of the circumstances in America while Jefferson was serving a diplomatic position in France. In my personal opinion, I think it was largely due to this that Madison began to attack Hamilton later on, since as soon as Jefferson arrived back from Paris, Madison suddenly had severe moral oppositions to Hamilton's plan, rather than just rational apprehension.

I also want to touch on Hamilton's perspective in their friendship, along with their fallout, specifically when it comes to The Federalist. Hamilton put such a high value on his work, and he held himself to a very high standard. There are a couple instances of him outsourcing his work to other men he admired, such as his last political stance, that the truth of an accusation can be used in libel cases. He asked several men to help him in writing a larger treatise on the matter than what he was able to make (due to yk the bullet that got put in his diaphragm), but these weren't just his friends. These men were very crucial figures in American law, which shows that, unlike men like Jefferson, he was very selective in who he chose to associate with when it came to his work.

This wasn't any different in 1787. When he chose John Jay and James Madison to assist in writing The Federalist, his reasons for both had nothing to do with their personal relationships. Jay was one of the most successful legal minds of the new country, and James Madison, was not only a Virginian, but was an absolute genius and fucking workhorse. If you like him or not, or if you like the Constitution or not, its undeniable that the Virginia Plan was absolute fucking genius, and Hamilton knew that.

This also shows a great amount of trust in Madison. Hamilton was an incredibly untrusting dude. He kept most of his emotions and personality away from work, and really the only people who knew who he was entirely were close family, one or two family friends included. They were the only people who knew his background, which is directly tied into his work, which was the most important thing to him. Without his work, in his eyes, he would have nothing. So for him to trust Madison with something he and the world viewed as one of his most important contributions to American history, that was incredibly significant.

Also I should mention that Hamilton definitely knew how important The Federalist would be, and this is clear in his introductory essay, which is confirmed that he himself wrote.

One thing that any Hamilton historians will agree on is that he was so set in his ways. If there was a moral or philosophical question before him, he would think about it constantly, consult his books and his peers, and once he decided on his stance, there was little to no chance of changing that. The Federalist are, if not anything else, the basis of Hamilton's political thinking. Hamilton, being the arrogant bitch that he was, assumed that every other genius would be equally steadfast in their beliefs.

But James Madison was different in that regard. He was also very tied in with his state's interest, as well as that of the planter class. Hamilton also had a strong bias towards his state and class, but not with the same attitude as someone who was born into it.

Therefore, when Madison openly opposed his Report on Public Credit with a speech in the House of Representatives, Hamilton viewed it as a deep betrayal of his trust, his work, and his principles. Hamilton saw this as a devastating insult to everything he stood for by someone he thought he could completely rely on. This was the 18th century burn book.

That speech immediately kicked off Hamilton lobbying to oppose Madison's counter-proposal, which he won because, frankly, Madison hadn't been expecting Hamilton to immediately come at him with the full arsenal, but Hamilton didn't half-arsenal anything. It was after that that Hamilton was able to process what had happened. According to one of Hamilton's allies, Manasseh Cutler, Hamilton saw Madison's opposition as "a perfidious desertion of the principles which [Madison] was solemnly pledged to defend." Ouch.

The final break between them was on the subject of the National Bank aspect of Hamilton's plan. This is when Madison redefined himself as a Democratic-Republican with a firm belief in strict construction of the Constitution, giving Hamilton free reign to take out his hurt feelings on him through the art of pussy politics* and this entirely dissolved the friendship that had once been there.

*pussy politics (noun): a form of politics in which grown men act like pussies by only supporting the governmental actions that benefit their families/wealth/land/class/etc. and it is very embarrassing and frustrating to sit through

Hamilton would spend a large part of his career battling Madison, and talking a lot of shit about him, which is what has allowed me to paint this stupid ass picture of two grown men fighting over banks. The personal language that he uses in regards to Madison is very different to the accusatory tone he took with his other enemies, and that in it of itself says a lot, but I hope this was able to shed some light on why Hamilton felt the way he did and what exactly he felt. Again, I love talking about this, so feel free to ask follow up questions!

[if-men-were-angels]

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist in the Trump White House who is at the forefront of the Republican march toward hard-right populism, is throwing his weight behind a movement to radically rewrite the US Constitution.

Bannon has devoted recent episodes of his online show the War Room to a well-funded operation which has stealthily gained ground over the past two years. Backed by billionaire donors and corporate interests, it aims to persuade state legislatures to call a constitutional convention in the hope of baking far-right conservative values into the supreme law of the land.

The goal is, in essence, to turn the country into a permanent conservative nation irrespective of the will of the American people. The convention would promote policies that would limit the size and scope of the federal government, set ceilings on or even abolish taxes, free corporations from regulations, and impose restrictions on government action in areas such as abortion, guns and immigration.

“This is another line of attack strategically,” Bannon told his viewers last month. “You now have a political movement that understands we need to go after the administrative state.”

By “administrative state”, Bannon was referring to the involvement of the federal government and Congress in central aspects of modern American life. That includes combating the climate crisis, setting educational standards and fighting health inequities.

Mark Meckler, a founder of the Tea Party who now leads one of the largest groups advocating for the tactic, the Convention of States Action (COSA), spelled out some of the prime objectives on Bannon’s show. “We need to say constitutionally, ‘No, the federal government cannot be involved in education, or healthcare, or energy, or the environment’,” he said.

Meckler went on to divulge the anti-democratic nature of the state convention movement when he said a main aim was to prevent progressive policies being advanced through presidential elections. “The problem is, any time the administration swings back to Democrat – or radical progressive, or Marxist which is what they are – we are going to lose the gains. So you do the structural fix.”

The “structural fix” involves Republican state legislatures pushing conservative amendments to America’s foundational document. By cementing the policies into the US Constitution, they would become largely immune to electoral challenge.

Were a convention achieved, it would mark the zenith of conservative state power in American politics. Over the past 12 years, since the eruption of the Tea Party, Republicans have extended their grip to more than half of the states in the country, imposing an increasingly far-right agenda on the heartlands.

Now the plan is to take that dominance nationwide.

Article V of the Constitution lays out two distinct ways in which America’s core document, ratified in 1788, can be revised. In practice, all 27 amendments that have been added over the past 244 years have come through the first route – a Congress-led process whereby two-thirds of both the US House and Senate have to approve changes followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states.

Meckler, working alongside other powerful interest groups and wealthy rightwing megadonors, is gunning for Article V’s second route – one that has never been tried before. It gives state legislatures the power to call a constitutional convention of their own, should two-thirds of all 50 states agree.

The state-based model for rewriting the US Constitution is perhaps the most audacious attempt yet by hard-right Republicans to secure what amounts to conservative minority rule in which a minority of lawmakers representing less-populated rural states dictate terms to the majority of Americans. Russ Feingold, a former Democratic US senator from Wisconsin, told The Guardian that “they want to rewrite the constitution in a fundamental way that is not just conservative, it is minoritarian. It will prevent the will of ‘we the people’ being heard.”

Feingold has co-authored with Peter Prindiville of the Stanford constitutional law center The Constitution in Jeopardy, a new book that sounds the alarm on the states-based convention movement. “Our goal is not to scare people, but to alert them that there is a movement on the far right that is quietly getting itself to a point where it will be almost impossible to stop a convention being called,” he said.

His urgency is underlined by how active the movement has become. A convention resolution framed by COSA has passed so far this year in four states – Wisconsin, Nebraska, West Virginia and South Carolina.

The group has also been busy around November’s midterm elections, using its muscle and some $600,000 (£528,252) of its reserves to support candidates amenable to the idea. “We have built the largest grassroots activist army in American history,” Meckler told Bannon, probably hyperbolically.

Bannon’s other guest on the War Room, Rick Santorum, a former Republican US senator from Pennsylvania who advises COSA, told Bannon: “This is something that can happen very quickly. We are a lot further along than people think.”

They are also much better funded than people might think. The Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which monitors the constitutional convention movement, estimates that it pulled in $25M (£22M) in 2020, the last year for which figures are known.

The funds were split between COSA and other influential groups on the right. They include the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a network of state politicians and corporate lobbyists which has taken up the cry for a constitutional amendment to force balanced budget restrictions on Washington.

Much of the income is dark money, with the origins hidden. CMD has managed to identify some key donors – among them the Mercer Family Foundation set up by reclusive hedge fund manager Robert Mercer, and a couple of groups run by Leonard Leo, the mastermind behind the rightwing land grab in the federal courts.

More than $1m (£880,265) has also been donated in the form of Bitcoin.

The attraction to these groups and donors of pursuing a states route to rewriting the US Constitution is easily explained. Over the past 12 years, since the eruption of the Tea Party in 2010, Republican activists have deployed extreme partisan gerrymandering to pull off an extraordinary takeover of state legislatures.

In 2010, Republicans controlled both chambers of just 14 state legislatures. Today, that number stands at 31.

“Republicans are near the high watermark in terms of their political control in the states, and that’s why the pro-Trump rightwing of the party is increasingly embracing the constitutional convention strategy,” said Arn Pearson, CMD’s executive director.

Should a convention be achieved, the plan would be to give states one vote each. There is no legal or historical basis for such an arrangement but its appeal is self-evident.

One vote per state would give small rural conservative states like Wyoming (population 580,000) equal leverage to large urbanized progressive states like California (39.5 million). Collectively, small states would be in the majority and control would tip to the Republicans.

Last December Santorum spelled out this minoritarian vision at a private ALEC meeting. In an audio recording obtained by CMD, Santorum said: “We have the opportunity, as a result, to have a supermajority, even though we may not even be in an absolute majority when it comes to the people who agree with us.”

Pearson decried such thinking as “a profoundly anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic strategy that gives small rural states most control”.

With the counting system skewed towards the conservative heartlands, the list of amendments that might be pursued is disconcertingly large. Though Meckler and his allies largely avoid talking about culture war issues, it is quite conceivable that a nationwide ban on abortion and a rescinding of gay marriage would be on the table.

More openly, advocates have talked about imposing balanced budget requirements on the US government that would dramatically shrink federal resources. Some have even proposed making income tax unconstitutional.

One of the more popular ideas circulating within rightwing constitutional convention circles, initially floated by the talk show host Mark Levin, is that states should grant themselves the ability to override federal statutes and supreme court rulings. It is hard to see how the federal rule of law could be sustained under such an arrangement with its unmistakable civil war undertones.

Under Article V, 34 states would have to call for a constitutional convention to reach the two-thirds requirement. COSA has so far succeeded in getting 19 states to sign up, with a further six in active consideration.

ALEC, which sets a narrower remit for a convention focused on its balanced budget amendment, has gone further with 28 states on board.

Either way, there is a shortfall. To address it, constitutional convention leaders have invented increasingly exotic mathematical formulas for attaining the magic number, 34. “We used to call it fuzzy math, now we call it wacky math,” Pearson said.

Advocates filed a lawsuit in Texas in February that tried to get the courts to force a constitutional convention on grounds that they had reached 34 states already – they cobbled together unrelated state convention calls, including some dating back to the 1800s. In July two bills were also introduced to the US House requiring Congress to call a convention immediately.

David Super, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the willingness to adopt outlandish logic should sound further alarm bells. It raised the stakes even higher for the November elections.

“The midterms are crucial,” Super said. “Changes at state-level matter, but will not get them to 34 states. If they can take control of Congress, they could bridge the gap.”

Paradoxically, what happens to Congress in the midterms could have the biggest impact on the future prospects of a states-based constitutional convention. Should the Republicans take back control of the US House and Senate they would be in a position to advance radical Republicans’ demands.

“We’ve already seen a willingness to play fast and loose with the math on all sorts of things in Congress,” Super said. “I would not be surprised if they were to make a serious attempt to adopt one of these bizarre accounting theories should they take control of both chambers in November.”

That could mean a rapid dash for a convention before most Americans would have woken up to the danger.

“If the Republicans prevail in Congress, they could try to call a convention right away,” Feingold said. “People should know that when they go to vote in November – this could fundamentally undermine their rights in a way that is both disturbing and permanent.”

[yr-obedt-cicero]

“Hamilton.” - Dr. William Samuel Johnson, delegate from Connecticut, in his diary

Only twice during the year did Dr. William Samuel Johnson (CT) indicate in his diary what had occurred in the Congress or the Convention. Today he followed the routine notation “In Convention” with one word, “Hamilton.”

(source — National Historical Park Pennsylvania)

This was the date of Hamilton's six-hour speech at the Constitutional Convention. I think it's telling why he wrote such.

[illm4nn3rd]

Proposal for a Renewed Constitutional Convention: Celebrating Tradition, Embracing Tomorrow

Invoking Article V for a Future-Ready America

To: Whom it may concern

Introduction:

As we stand on the cusp of a new era, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that our cherished Constitution, crafted by our Founding Fathers, remains vibrant and responsive to the challenges of our time.

Purpose:

Utilizing the provision of Article V, we endeavor to create an inclusive platform that harmonizes our time-honored principles with the pressing demands of the modern age. We seek to breathe fresh life into our Constitution, ensuring its enduring relevance.

Core Topics for Discussion:

Digital Rights & Privacy: Navigating the balance between modern technology and our cherished personal freedoms, and the responsibilities large corporations hold to the customers they serve. Right to repair being of great importance.

Stewardship of the Land: Upholding our duty to the land that may yet nurture us for future generations.

Universal Rights: A renewed commitment to justice and equality for all.

Election Integrity: Refining our systems to better echo the people's voice.

Addressing Grievances: Evolving our mechanisms for a neutral mediation in dispute resolution.

Science, Ethics, and Human Dignity: Charting the interplay between innovation and moral values.

America on the Global Stage: Revaluating our shared space on the global stage while upholding our core principles.

State-Specific Issues: Highlighting the unique challenges and strengths of each state.

Costs of Responsibility: Debating and reconciling the responsibilities of individual citizens, state governments, and the Federal government amongst one other, and the costs required for upholding said responsibility. Balancing the cost of living for working class citizens while keeping the burden with in reason for all Americans.

Convention Dynamics:

Commencement: A momentous kick-off on July 4th, paying tribute to our democratic roots.

Duration: A two-year journey, dedicating two weeks to each state based on their Union accession, to allow deep dives into regional concerns.

State Representation: Five delegates from each state: two from state legislatures, two chosen by popular vote, and one appointed by the governor.

Oversight:

An Oversight Committee comprising nine distinguished individuals will guide the proceedings:

Three nominated by the federal government to represent national interests.

Three chosen by collective state governors to voice state-centric concerns.

Three elected by the popular vote, ensuring the citizenry's voice remains at the forefront.

Public Involvement:

Transparency: A steadfast commitment to open discourse, with deliberations documented for public perusal.

Engagement Platforms: Town halls and digital forums to capture a myriad of views.

Educational Endeavors: Initiatives to deepen public understanding of pivotal topics.

Post-Convention Action Plan:

Documentation: Archiving outcomes for public review and historical records.

State-Level Engagements: Encouraging states to participate in cooperation and bridge building, regardless of ratification.

Community Mobilization: Aiding local movements to use authentic language while promoting civil debate.

Review Mechanism:

8 years post-convention, the Oversight Committee will reconvene as a Review Council and will:

Assess: Examine the real-world impact of the convention's resolutions.

Recommend: Make recommendations to Federal legislatures on any further corrections or changes that may yet assist in creating a more perfect Union.

Provide Guidance: Offer insights for future conventions, drawing from encountered challenges and gained experiences.

Financing:

Funding will be sourced judiciously from federal and state treasuries, accompanied by rigorous oversight mechanisms to ensure transparent and neutral allocation.

Conclusion:

In reimagining our Constitution, we embark on a journey that honors our past while crafting a beacon for our future. We invite you to join hands in this noble pursuit, shaping a legacy for generations to come.

With profound respect and hope for our shared future, A Patriot in Service to the Republic.

[ivan-fyodorovich-k]

When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object...But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country [in]to a powerful and mighty empire: If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your Government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: Such a government is compatible with the genius of republicanism.

Patrick Henry, 5 June 1788, recorded in the Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution IX:959

[tobbogan-13]

I had a really dumb idea in US government today

I'm gonna do it because I find it hilarious

[trendynewsnow]

The Stakes of Election Day: Democracy vs. Authoritarianism

What Does It Mean When We Say “Democracy Is on the Ballot” on Election Day? In a powerful address delivered on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., Vice President Kamala Harris spoke from the same location near the White House where former President Donald Trump incited an insurrection against the Capitol on January 6, 2021. Harris framed the upcoming Election Day as a critical juncture, emphasizing the…

[here-a-lee-there-a-lee]

decided to fix/recreate one of the earliest founding father artworks i posted on this blog

also im trynna work on a rutledge/lanyon thing so bear with me guys ... 😪 i'll post it soon!

og post

[pub-lius]

GET HYPE GET HYPE GEORGE WASHINGTON PART TO

@thereallvrb0y I LOVE YOU /p

FUCK the Revolution is happening and the Continental Congress commissioned Washington to take command of the Continental Army in Boston in June 1775. He wrote to Martha wrote that he should return in the fall but motherfucker was LYING, he came back 8 years later in the winter like bro.

Bro was NOT prepared for this, he only had experience from the Virginia frontier thing with only a few hundred men. He was figuring that shit out as he went and mf was STRESSING. I'm not retelling the revolution, there's no time, but specific questions are welcome bc Washington and his staff during the Revolutionary War are the biggest part of my specialty.

During the Revolution, the Congress assholes wrote the fucking Articles of Confederation, which sucked, and Washington thought that they sucked bc he had to experience why they sucked constantly. He wrote to James Madison that they needed an energetic Constitution, bc that's a thing ig.

He went to Philadelphia in 1787 for the convention to amend the articles after being sufficiently peer pressured by Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who you might have heard of. He was unanimously chosen to provide over the convention, but spoke little in proceedings.

"My wish is that the convention may adopt no temporizing expedients but probe the defects of the Constitution to the bottom and provide a radical cure."

vvgfthyvcrt45 -my mom's puppy

Washington's reputation and support were essential to the Ratification, and he helped the federalists gain support. He hoped to finally retire for real, but recieved a vote from EVERY ELECTOR in the first presidential election. While this is impressive (and inconvenient), it was manufactured, and the fact that he's still the only unanimously elected president is also manufactured.

He served two terms as president. His first term lasted 1789-1793. It was occupied mainly by organizing the executive branch and establishing procedures. He had several principle advisors, such as Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and Henry Knox, and they all got along really well and liked each other very much. (you can tell I'm lying because I'm about to mention the financial plan)

Washington adopted a series of measures proposed by Hamilton to resolve the national debt. He also concluded peace treaties with southeastern indigenous tribes and designated a site on the Potomac river for a permanent capital.

His first term ended with a war against indigenous tribes continuing on the northwest frontier, which was encouraged by the British, and this would be one of the issues that would cause the war of 1812. The Spanish also denied Americans use of the Mississippi River. These issues limited the westward expansion Washington really wanted.

Washington was also very concerned by partisan politics, highlighted by severe divisions between the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists. A lot of people say that Washington was a federalist, but that is entirely missing the point. He didn't align himself with either political party bc he recognized that they are dangerous and damaging to governments. This point is annoying as shit and doesn't even MATTER.

Washington reluctantly agreed to a second term (1793-1797), which was dominated by foreign affairs. For example, the fucking French Revolution, and I'm going into fight or flight at just the mention of this in relation to foreign affairs.

Washington believed neutrality was key for US policy, since they couldn't afford a war, and he believed the country's future depended on increasing wealth from commerce and westward expansion. One of his greatest accomplishments was keeping the US out of the war.

Partisanship continued to grow within the executive branch. The department heads "agreed" that the US should remain neutral, but did they really? They disagreed over foreign policy, with Hamiltonian federalists siding with Great Britain, and Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans siding with France. This heavily deepened the partisan divide.

Also, he had a tumor at some point as president. It was benign, but he had to have surgery.

Opposition to federal policies developed into resistance to law in 1794 when distillers in West Pennsylvania rioted and refused to pay taxes. Washington directed the army to restore order. This action was applauded by Federalists and condemned by Republicans.

The war against indigenous tribes was a victory for the white people, Britain surrendered some (*FORESHADOWING*) of it's forts in the Northwest, and Spain opened the Mississippi River. This opened the west to settlement. Washington concluded his second term with his famous Farewell Address and yippee!! he can retire!!!!

Sike again, he had to be commander-in-chief again bc Adams is a pussy.

But it's fine, he got to go home for the next two years.

On December 12, 1788 he was supervising farming activities from late morning until 3 in the afternoon. The weather shifted from light snow to hail to rain. When it was dinner time, someone was like "hey man, your clothes are pretty wet, you should probably cha-" and Washington was like "would you make Hamilton and his autism go against his daily schedule? no you wouldn't. so if you wouldn't be ableist to him, don't be ableist to me" and then went to eat dinner in his nasty ass clothes.

He noticed that he had a sore throat and became increasingly hoarse. He woke up in terrible discomfort at 2 am, and Martha went to get help. And this... DUMBASS (Washington). REQUESTED that the doctors used bloodletting. AND THATS PROBABLY WHAT KILLED HIM. in addition to that the group of doctors tried induced vomiting, an enema, and "potions' of vinegar and sage tea. He still got worse. He called for his two wills, and directed that the unused one should be burned.

He died between 10 and 11 at night on December 14, 1799. Happy Anniversary, Hamilton and Eliza. He passed peacefully by people close to him (Martha, Dr. Craik, Tobias Lear, his enslaved housemaids Caroline Branham, Molly, and Charlotte, and his valet Christopher Sheels). He was not buried for three days by his request. His body lay in a mahogany casket in the New Room. His funeral was held on December 18, 1799 at Mount Vernon where he was laid to rest in the family tomb. He was moved to a better tomb, and thank fuck bc i went to the first one and it was janky as hell.

Okay, Washington is done. Now, we've just got my holy trinity: Burr, Lafayette, and Hamilton. Also, if you couldn't tell, Washington's death is a micro-special interest of mine LHFSKJFHSK anyway i hope you enjoyed. I still have more shit to do so if you see me floating around, tell me to get back to work.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Republicans have campaigned behind the scenes for years now to change the Constitution through a gathering of 34 state legislatures known as a constitutional convention.

A constitutional convention, designated by Article V of the Constitution, would allow state legislatures to pass or ratify constitutional amendments without a governor's signature, Congress' intervention, or any input from the President.

Some Republicans attempt to use a convention, which has never been accomplished in U.S. history, to limit the federal governments spending and taxation powers and enact term limits on more federal officials.

Former Democratic Senator Russ Feingold and constitutional scholar Peter Prindiville write in their new book "The Constitution in Jeopardy" that a "runaway" convention has the potential to go off-script and create massive changes in how the federal government regulates laws concerning health care, education, and the environment.

Prindiville told the Times that the convention would operate as a "free-standing, distinct constitutional body" without clear guidance on how it would function because the rules of a constitutional convention were never detailed by the framers.

"Despite convention proponents' claims of legal certainty, the most important questions about how a convening held under Article V would be called and how it would function are unsettled," Feingold and Prindiville write in their book, according to the Times.

"The framers left no rules. In this uncertainty lies great danger and, possibly, great power."

Insider's Grace Panetta and Brent D. Griffiths previously reported on the Republican plan to assemble a constitutional convention to gut environmental regulations and education standards while making it more difficult for Washington, DC or territories like Puerto Rico to earn statehood.

Rob Natelson, a key Article V scholar in the movement to call a convention, previously dismissed the potential of a "runaway" convention to Insider.

The Convention of the States, which has ties to prominent Republicans like former Trump lawyer John Eastman, has pushed for narrow revisions of the Constitution that would limit "the power and jurisdiction" of the federal government.

David Super, a professor and Constitutional law expert at Georgetown University Law Center, told Insider that limiting the power of the federal government could actually result in extreme and broad changes.

"I defy you to name a Constitutional amendment that you might want that I couldn't characterize as one of the three things in the Convention of States," Super told Panetta and Griffiths. "You want to repeal the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause? That's limiting the power of the federal government to interfere with state laws. Almost anything you want, you can characterize as one of those things."

Nineteen states have so far passed a Convention of States' resolution — with five states making progress on the resolution — according to an Insider analysis. Three states — South Dakota, Iowa, and North Carolina — have Republican-led state legislatures.

Backers of a constitutional convention include Eastman, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Natelson previously told Insider that he predicts there is a 50% chance the country will be able to form one within the next five years.

[18th-century-possum]

Old assignment from college on three-fifths clause

Can't remember the specific guidelines for this assignment, but it was generally on the long-term impacts of the three-fifths clause to the Civil War. There was a word limit, so obviously A LOT is missing, and I wouldn't be suprised if I oversimplified some stuff at the time.

Notes: I did not fully reread through this because I ain't reading all that. I was barely conscious that entire semester, and this was written like over three years ago. Also, the north does not get enough criticism for its part in allowing slavery to continue and even encouraging it. Yes, there was activism from the north from White and Black people, but the north was heavily dependent on the labor of slaves to fuel their factories and businesses. The north needs to receive more criticism for that, rather than this view that they were saints or something smh. (I am arguably from the north so don't come for me about that. I'm not some bitter white southerner).

Feel free to add to anything I've said here! And would love to hear input about this topic!

Bone apple teeth y'all

"To the delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the contention and issues between large and small states appeared to be the most divisive issue, but, as James Madison admitted, the division between the northern free states and the southern slave holding states emerged as a stronger division over a more divisive and sensitive issue, which made this matter so polarizing and difficult to compromise over. To the south’s delight, many concessions were made that granted the south many liberties in protecting slavery, most notably the three-fifths clause. This clause was a compromise over apportionment of persons inhabiting the states in order to elect the House of Representatives and the President through the electoral college. The three-fifths clause allowed the slaveholding states to count three-fifths of their population towards their representation in the House and in the electoral college, allowing them to gain more seats and votes, giving them a greater influence than the north based on representation. This was originally done at the south’s insistence to allow them to protect slavery against anti-slavery legislation. Though the three-fifths clause was constructed during the Constitutional Convention to diffuse tensions between northern and southern states, the clause created extreme division and polarization between the north and south, as the north felt that the south had too much “hyper-empowerment,” thereby creating an undemocratic power imbalance that hurt northern whites and advocation for their interests.

              With the three-fifths clause, the south wielded undemocratic power, allowing them to have an equal amount of representation in the House as the north, despite the south’s smaller white population. In addition, this disproportionate power allowed the south to dominate two-thirds of the presidents until 1861. Further, twenty of the twenty-five first Supreme Court Justices were from the south, as the southern presidents chose the Supreme Court Justices. The south had gained this great advantage from the international slave trade until it stopped in 1808 and the booming domestic slave trade that increased after the end of the international slave trade. In some places in the south, the enslaved population outnumbered the white population, but the south still benefited from this, making slavery not only an economic investment, but also a political one since they benefited from the additional three-fifths representation by having more southerners in office. This extra representation allowed the south to protect slavery against northern legislation, which the north felt disenfranchised their constituents, as the south gained disproportionate power to protect against on of their particular interest, slavery, making it harder for the north to protect their own interests, since several northerners would side with the south at times.

              Even though the north had a larger free population, there were an equal number of free state representatives and slave holding state representatives because of the three-fifths clause. This balance between the two and caused by the three-fifths clause was essential to maintain in order to diffuse tensions and keep slavery out of the national and federal discussion, as it was an extremely sensitive issue. However, in 1803, more territory was gained through the Louisiana Purchase, and it became obvious that eventually the territory would become states and would have to determine its relationship with slavery upon entering the Union. This officially became an issue in the Missouri Crisis that lasted 1819-1821, as Missouri applied to enter the Union as a slave holding state since they believed they had the right to decide for themselves. However, when Missouri applied to become a state, the U.S. was at a perfect balance of eleven free states and eleven slave states, which would disrupt the balance in the Senate. If Missouri were to enter as a slave holding state, the south would have more power in Congress purely because of the three-fifths clause. The Tallmadge Amendment was proposed to allow gradual emancipation in Missouri, but this was shut down by the southerners in the Senate and their few northern allies, and this was an act aided by the extra representation received through the three-fifths clause. In order to resolve this issue, Maine was admitted as a free state to maintain the balance in the Senate, and a line was drawn under Missouri through the Louisiana Territory that declared that no states above this line except Missouri could enter in as a slave state. This was only a temporary solution and would result in more divisions between the north and south, and this equal division in the government rather than northern domination was made possible through the extra representation the south received through the three-fifths clause. In addition, through this crisis, the north became more fearful of the south’s “hyper-empowerment,” and slavery became publicly debated in Congress, creating open polarization in the government and among their constituents.

              With the extra representation power granted to the south through the three-fifths clause, the issue of slavery was guaranteed to be a cause of intense political issue, as the south would be able to protect their interests at the expense of the north. To the north, they were not opposed to the three-fifths clause because of slavery, but primarily because they believed that the extra representation granted to the south and their interests infringed on northern white people. This minority rule granted to the south undercut the experience of self-rule and damaged democracy at the expense of the northern white people. When a party is constricting another group, that group is bound to become angry and feel treated unfairly. In addition, this constant maintenance of perfect division in Congress only allowed the south to continue to claim they would abolish slavery without actually making any effort to do so, as the north would be unable to force them to do so through any legislation if they wanted to.

              From its birth in the Constitutional Convention, the three-fifths clause created a stronger division over the issue over slavery, which the three-fifths clause was created to protect. With the three-fifths clause, the south could gain more representation and power in the government to protect slavery at the expense of northern interests, causing the north to call this the south’s “hyper-empowerment.” The north objected to this extreme advantage granted to the south, arguing that it hurt northern whites, self-rule, and democracy. Unfortunately, the creation of the three-fifths clause by the Founding Fathers to appease the south caused extreme division in American society and government as the south gained more power over legislation than the north based on representation, protecting the undemocratic institution of slavery, fostering more undemocratic principles, and contributing to division that would lead to the Civil War."

[shadowofthecactus]

Don't Pay Your Taxes & Radically Changing the Constitution

On principal, I don’t support killing–which too much of our federal taxes end up being used to do. Whether directly through our own military, or via foreign aid to places like Israel and Ukraine, the money is used to buy weapons and bombs to destroy people’s lives and homes. I want no part of it. It makes my stomach turn and my heart sink. Also, our tax system is regressive. It’s akin to slavery…

[realpeterabell]

Promised prizes

The term 'constitutional convention' has joined 'independence referendum' as a promised prize for voting SNP.

The Sunday National informs us of today’s big news in the campaign to restore Scotland’s independence. The big news is that the STUC has said it would be “open to participation” in a constitutional convention. It is a measure of how woefully moribund the independence campaign has become that the mere possibility of the STUC taking part in something that might happen some time in the future under…