AHC: 2nd Constitutional Convention

Here is the challange, sometime between the adoption of the first constitution (1789) and the twentieth century (1900), try to have a 2nd Constitutional Convention in the United States. The US is unique in that its current constitution has only been edited 17(27 if you count bill of rights) times, and those were just additions. We've had only 1 amendment ever repealed. So it's easy to see that it has been a pretty good document. Not bad for a bunch of farmers. Back to the point, what event before 1900 and after 1789 could possibly lead to the need for a 2nd connstitutional convention?
 
A bunch of farmers? :confused:

Um, but more seriously, I'm not sure what could happen for the Constitution as a whole to be seen as so broken as to need to be entirely rewritten.
 
It needn't be a question of broader or narrower extent of the amendments wanted, it could just be that 2/3 of state legislatures really want an amendment but not 2/3 of congress.
 
USA had a fair number of tensions from 1820 (Missouri Compromise) to 1861. They were usually solved by Congress action, and while the lame duck Congress in 1861 proposed Crittenden Amendment, the states had acted before by secession and calling Montgomery Convention.

How seriously was a new Constitutional Convention proposed between 1820 and 1861?
 
I should point out, of course, that in practical terms the way the U.S is run has changed drastically- expansion of Federal government power is undeniable. In addition, a 'bunch of lawyers' is still oversimplified but closer to the truth than 'a bunch of farmers'.

As for the question, a few possible ideas:
-The Supreme Court takes an extreme Federalist or State's Rights interpretation of the Constitution or extreme pro-or-anti slavery position, prompting a Constitutional Convention to get around them.
-An 1812-esque war against Britain or France happens under different circumstances (more plausibly France for this scenario), leading to a severe defeat. A 'Constitutional Convention' is called turning the U.S into a British or French puppet.
-Washington accepts the monarchy and becomes mad with power. After his overthrow, it is decided that they need a better system.
-Some time after the "Civil War", during the Jacksonian era, or another era of federal centralisation the States attempt to undercut the Federal Government by calling a Constitutional Convention to avoid losing their rights.
 
Reconstruction era seems to be the quickest and easiest route. While the Republicans have near absolute control of the House and Senate, but are stymied by Southern sympathizing president thwarting their aims at putting an end to the legacy of the Antebellum South, the Republican Party, if sufficiently motivated, could decide to make the Civil War a sort of "Second Revolution" to complete the legacy of the founders, and use a new Constitution to solidify their gains.

The new constitution makes the supremacy of the federal government absolutely clear, and probably settles interpetations of the commerce clause pretty clearly. Perhaps a parliamentary dependent head of state, to prevent further obstructionist presidents
 
Near absolute control?

I guess that's why they failed to get Andrew Johnston impeached. Had to give the people the illusion there were Democrats in office.

Not sure what the "legacy of the Antebellum South" is supposed to mean - if its a generalization or a euphemism or what, either.

I suppose its theoretically possible you might get something like this, but it would need a POD that made the Republicans more powerful and more popular, and that unleashes changes before this can even get going.
 
Near absolute control?

I guess that's why they failed to get Andrew Johnston impeached. Had to give the people the illusion there were Democrats in office.

Not sure what the "legacy of the Antebellum South" is supposed to mean - if its a generalization or a euphemism or what, either.

I suppose its theoretically possible you might get something like this, but it would need a POD that made the Republicans more powerful and more popular, and that unleashes changes before this can even get going.
In 1866, the Republican Party had 173 seats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats had 47. The Republicans had 57 seats in the Senate. The Democrats had 9. In 1868, the Republicans lost only two seats in the House, and gained five in the Senate, while the Democrats gained a mere 20 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate.

That's overwhelming control of the government. Remember, the Senate is also a pretty good proxy for State government control at this time, since senators are elected by state legislatures.

They failed to get Andrew Johnson impeached because Republicans balked at the precedent it would set in turning impeachment into a political tool to be exercised over the executive. The conviction failed by one vote in the Senate. Throughout this period, the Democrats only could muster token opposition, as the Republicans had more than 2/3rds control of both Houses, and a supermajority of state governments under their control (hence the quick passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments).

What I meant was that Reconstruction was begun to obliterate the socio-economic system that had sustained the elite Southern planter class. The Republicans, particularly the Radical faction which was dominant at the time, were going to drag the South kicking and screaming into the 19th century whether they wanted it or not. That meant undoing the plantation economy and paving the way for industrial capitalism.

They failed, but not for lack of trying. The political will to keep Reconstruction going could not be sustained forever, especially under the mechanics of the Constitution.
 
In 1866, the Republican Party had 173 seats in the House of Representatives. The Democrats had 47. The Republicans had 57 seats in the Senate. The Democrats had 9. In 1868, the Republicans lost only two seats in the House, and gained five in the Senate, while the Democrats gained a mere 20 seats in the House and 3 in the Senate.

That's overwhelming control of the government. Remember, the Senate is also a pretty good proxy for State government control at this time, since senators are elected by state legislatures.

Just over three fourths of the House (78.6%), though I agree on the Senate.

And a change of twenty out the House's 220 seats is not minimal. Though if this is 20 total, I suppose...I don't have a list of the make up of Congress handy at the moment.

If you want to say someone has near absolute control, you'd need to have opposition percentages measured in single digits. Not trying to nitpick, but three-fourths - while impressive - is not total control, either, especially with any meaningful division within the group in question. And the Republicans seem to have had a gap between the radicals (small R - the big R radicals count but they're not the only examples) and industrial/capitalists.

They failed to get Andrew Johnson impeached because Republicans balked at the precedent it would set in turning impeachment into a political tool to be exercised over the executive. The conviction failed by one vote in the Senate. Throughout this period, the Democrats only could muster token opposition, as the Republicans had more than 2/3rds control of both Houses, and a supermajority of state governments under their control (hence the quick passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments).
Which period are we talking about? By 1873, the Radicals are on their way to being tarred with the slander that has dominated the telling of Reconstruction for most of the period between its end and the present.

And of course, this is assuming that the Republicans are all for the same things, which is not the case. Sometimes, but probably not to the point where they would be able to use that to do more than they did.

What I meant was that Reconstruction was begun to obliterate the socio-economic system that had sustained the elite Southern planter class. The Republicans, particularly the Radical faction which was dominant at the time, were going to drag the South kicking and screaming into the 19th century whether they wanted it or not. That meant undoing the plantation economy and paving the way for industrial capitalism.

They failed, but not for lack of trying. The political will to keep Reconstruction going could not be sustained forever, especially under the mechanics of the Constitution.
Failing for reasons other than lack of trying is very strongly telling about how much actual power they had and how dominant the Radicals really were, however. They had eight years and thanks to facing terrorism in the South and apathy in the North, well, we don't see equal rights for century.

Changing the Constitution wouldn't do much to adjust that, unfortunately.
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
That's your answer to everything isn't it? ;)

However I'd love to read it.
Nope, it isn't. I actually consider a Socialist Revolution in the US ASB. Revolutions usually happens to seriously flawed societies, where any attempt for peacefully reforms is impossible. Russia in 1917 was like that, so was Cuba under Batista, Iran under the shah and France under the Absolute Monarchy. The US never was in that situation, therefor a Socialist Revolution could not have happen in the US. I would love to read an ASB TL about a Socialist US though.
 
Here is the challange, sometime between the adoption of the first constitution (1789) and the twentieth century (1900), try to have a 2nd Constitutional Convention in the United States. The US is unique in that its current constitution has only been edited 17(27 if you count bill of rights) times, and those were just additions. We've had only 1 amendment ever repealed. So it's easy to see that it has been a pretty good document. Not bad for a bunch of farmers. Back to the point, what event before 1900 and after 1789 could possibly lead to the need for a 2nd connstitutional convention?


Iirc there was serious talk of this in the crisis of 1800/01.

The Federalists were talking abut passing a law that Sec of state John Marshall should become POTUS if none had been chosen by March 4. D/Rs countered by threatening a second Constitutional Convention to draw up a new Charter reducing the powers of the Senate and Supreme Court. In the end it all blew over, but WI - -?


I also have a vague recollection that two-thirds of the states called for a Constitutional Convention in the early 20C, to vote on direct election of Senators, but that Congress "short-circuited" it by passing the Amendment themselves.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I can see something like a new Constitutional Convention taking place in the 1850s as the various politicians work to avert civil war. Unfortunately, it would probably have solidified the institutioin of slavery. IIRC, one amendment proposed during the secession crisis would have made it impossible for the federal government to abolish slavery in the future, even by the mechanism of a constitutional amendment.

Interestingly, the Confederates drafting their constitution in Montgomery in 1861 made some changes that showed that they had learned something in the seventy years since the original Constitution had been created. They gave the President a line-item veto and a six-year term (and didn't allow the President to seek subsequent terms).
 

Eurofed

Banned
Interestingly, the Confederates drafting their constitution in Montgomery in 1861 made some changes that showed that they had learned something in the seventy years since the original Constitution had been created. They gave the President a line-item veto and a six-year term (and didn't allow the President to seek subsequent terms).

Not to mention other useful improvements such a one-subject-per-bill limit (goodbye riders), some fiscal responsibility clausles, and the right of Cabinet members to have a non-voting seat in the Congress.
 
Logically a Constitutional Convention is most likely to be called for proposed amendments favoured by small States. If 2/3 states support amendments, then they can propose the amendment by 2/3 of their Senators. But if bigger states object, they can block 2/3 in the House - which they cannot do in case call for convention.

Which are the proposed constitutional amendments passed by Senate, but not House?
 
Not to mention other useful improvements such a one-subject-per-bill limit (goodbye riders), .

in most US states that have this policy, the result has been to shift more power to the courts. Its extremely easy to strike down legislation on 'one-subject-per-bill' grounds if you don't like it, since the definition of subject is subjective.
 

Eurofed

Banned
in most US states that have this policy, the result has been to shift more power to the courts. Its extremely easy to strike down legislation on 'one-subject-per-bill' grounds if you don't like it, since the definition of subject is subjective.

As I see it, it is a good price to get rid of riders (pun intended). If Pork-Barrel or Insert Bigotry of Choice Congressman X wants his pet legislation approved, he best find the means to summon the approval of Congress about a specific bill for it, or give up.
 
Top