Upon reflection, given the sentiment of Jefferson, whom is credited with advising revolution be undertaken every couple decades, it seems odd no provision for orderly reformation of government was included in the Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution later adopted.
Good point on that quote. Would the amendment process through a convention of the states serve that purpose? I heard that only about 30% of the people for for the American Revolution, but they were passionate enough. Maybe Jefferson didn't want the next 30% to overturn the government for the wrong reasons.
I have to note that I can only address the rhetoric Jefferson expressed, and that he was an immensely rich and powerful landowner, slaver, and probably a Mason. Lysander Spooner observed before the Civil War that the Constitution had failed to protect civilians from government, and either wasn't designed to protect them, or couldn't because it was inadequete.
Things haven't gotten any better, since then.
A constitutional convention could be convened for any given limited purpose, but once convened could do as it preferred, which is why no one wants to convene a constitutional convention.
I believe there is a glaring hole in many people's understanding of an amendment produced by a convention of states. The states still have to ratify them. If the delegates go off the rails and agree amongst themselves on an unpopular amendment then there will be plenty of push back among the population and it will not be voted in. It may be that this point is not mentioned to make it look like a bad idea to open "Pandora's Box"
The fear isn't of an amendment, but of whole new Constitutions that may well be desirable to some or others of the various states, because one amendment is perceived by very few as responsive to the present exigency of corruption.
Upon reflection, given the sentiment of Jefferson, whom is credited with advising revolution be undertaken every couple decades, it seems odd no provision for orderly reformation of government was included in the Articles of Confederation, nor the Constitution later adopted.
Thanks!
Good point on that quote. Would the amendment process through a convention of the states serve that purpose? I heard that only about 30% of the people for for the American Revolution, but they were passionate enough. Maybe Jefferson didn't want the next 30% to overturn the government for the wrong reasons.
I have to note that I can only address the rhetoric Jefferson expressed, and that he was an immensely rich and powerful landowner, slaver, and probably a Mason. Lysander Spooner observed before the Civil War that the Constitution had failed to protect civilians from government, and either wasn't designed to protect them, or couldn't because it was inadequete.
Things haven't gotten any better, since then.
A constitutional convention could be convened for any given limited purpose, but once convened could do as it preferred, which is why no one wants to convene a constitutional convention.
Things could always be worse.
I believe there is a glaring hole in many people's understanding of an amendment produced by a convention of states. The states still have to ratify them. If the delegates go off the rails and agree amongst themselves on an unpopular amendment then there will be plenty of push back among the population and it will not be voted in. It may be that this point is not mentioned to make it look like a bad idea to open "Pandora's Box"
The fear isn't of an amendment, but of whole new Constitutions that may well be desirable to some or others of the various states, because one amendment is perceived by very few as responsive to the present exigency of corruption.