Re United States Constitution -- 21st Century Convention

["Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Greg Brooks <gregb () west-third com>
Date: Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 1:01 PM
Subject: RE: [IP] United States Constitution -- 21st Century Convention
To: <dave () farber net>, ip <ip () listbox com>
Cc: <ecgrimm () me com>


Dave, for IP if you wish.



There are two major efforts for “Article V” constitutional reform at
present. Both have presented at ALEC and both are darlings in the wonkier
end of the conservative movement, although one also has some notable
support on the left as well.



The broader effort is being undertaken by Convention of States, which is
pursing a wide-open convention. Their process will require two transits
through the states (they’re working on the first one now) and the soonest
anyone can imagine them getting to a convention is about 10 years.



The second, narrower effort is being undertaken by the Compact For America
Educational Foundation, and involves using an interstate compact to lock in
(and reduce risk from) the variables of a convention. The compact approach
is being used for a specific amendment “payload” – a balanced-budget and
debt-ceiling amendment, in this case – and eliminates fears of a runaway
convention. This lock-in also means only a single trip to the states; an
amendment could go from zero to adoption in as little as 18 months.



Both are red-meat conservative organizations, but the CFA approach has also
been lauded by Lawrence Lessig for its adaptability in pursuing
other-than-conservative policy goals.



The laundry list of possible amendments Eric mentioned would be the kind of
thing you’d expect in an open convention. But as a political reality?
People across all ideological stripes get twitchy when you start talking
about amending the Constitution, and I think the narrower approach of CFA
has a better shot. With momentum and starting from scratch? You’d probably
need about $25 million to make it happen.

(I should note that there’s nothing in the CFA approach that limits it to a
single amendment. You could bundle multiple amendments into a single
interstate compact mechanism, but the more you put it, the more likely
people are to find a reason not to like it.)



Greg Brooks

West Third Group

(Disclaimer: I have worked with CFA in the past.)





*From:* Dave Farber [mailto:farber () gmail com]
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:33 AM
*To:* ip <ip () listbox com>
*Subject:* [IP] United States Constitution -- 21st Century Convention






Begin forwarded message:

*From:* Eric Grimm <ecgrimm () me com>
*Date:* July 19, 2017 at 8:23:09 AM EDT
*To:* dave () farber net
*Subject:* *United States Constitution -- 21st Century Convention*

Hello, Dave.



I'm not sure if this was previously a topic of discussion on your list last
year or not.  I  just resubscribed and was out of the loop for some time.
I apologize if the news is old.



I wager my question is not.



Last September, in Williamsburg, the American Legislative Exchange Council
(ALEC) held what amounts to a dress-rehearsal or dry run for calling and
then running a Convention to replace the United States Constitution:



https://www.alec.org/article/article-v-simulation/



The last time a convention was held (September 1787), initially multiple
drafts were presented and ultimately Madison's draft (the Virginia Plan)
became the template.



If such an event were to come to pass in 2017 or 2018 (states calling a new
Convention), presumably it makes some sense to have multiple proposals (not
just the ALEC proposal) to present to the Convention.



From my personal perspective, I would like to see one or more proposals
drafted in as transparent a way as possible, with as much input from as
many smart (or just opinionated) people as possible from across the
political spectrum.



Other readers perhaps know better than I do whether the software developed
by FSF for hammering out the GPL v.3 would be suitable for crowdsourcing a
proposed Constitution (or several proposals) to present to a Convention, if
one just happened to be called ... say, prior to the 2018 election, perhaps.



I would also be interested in hearing from people interested in Con Law,
what good questions are to ask and consider as part of such a drafting
process.



I don't claim to have all the right answers, but I would like to gather the
best questions, and have a lot of cognitive firepower try to come up with
the best solutions we can.



The Electoral College has to go, more likely than not.



And we are probably better off with something other than winner-take-all
Congressional seats, that drive politics into two-party polarization.



But what about the power to "coin" money?  Perhaps a cryptocurrency update
is in order.



Some are likely to hold strong opinions about the replacement of Austin v.
Michigan Chamber of Commerce, with the inconsistent later precedents of
Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC.



Would it make sense to form a working group to start an open and
transparent process of crowdsourcing the preparation of a 21st Century
constitution for the digital age?



I would be eager to hear from your readers, and anyone else who catches
wind of this proposal, how best to organize such a project.



Thanks so much!!!



Eric C. Grimm

Eric C. Grimm, PLLC

734.717.4900

ecgrimm () umich edu






Sent from my iPad

This message was sent to the list address and trashed, but can be found
online.
<https://www.listbox.com/login/messages/view/20170719130140:EBE7CC48-6CA3-11E7-8CA4-F991CDEE9199/>



-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170719130349:390B10DE-6CA4-11E7-AA0C-E78F0BDDA915
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com