DBWI: the Constitutional Convention of 1969 were not held

The Supreme Court decision Reynolds v. Sims (1964) caused a national uproar especially among rural constituencies who feared being dominated by urban ones. Thanks to Sen. Dirksen's indefatigable efforts to convince the legislature of state after state, a Constitutional Convention was held under Article V of the constitution to propose amendments to the constitution. What if Dirksen had died just a year earlier, in 1969, and so the Convention was not held? Would the far-reaching changes that Convention produced still be made as ordinary statutes, or be overturned by the Supreme Court, or even not happen at all? What would the United States look like today, politically, legally and socially?
 
OOC: Oh boy could this thread go places....

I would think the concept of 'American Social Democracy' and the prosperity of the last few decades might not have happened, that's for sure. I mean, we might not have had the Advancement of American Health Care Act and the Education Acts, and the civil infrastructure improvements definitely wouldn't have happened....
 
OOC: Oh boy could this thread go places....

I would think the concept of 'American Social Democracy' and the prosperity of the last few decades might not have happened, that's for sure. I mean, we might not have had the Advancement of American Health Care Act and the Education Acts, and the civil infrastructure improvements definitely wouldn't have happened....
The Constitution might not be as long as it is now. The Convention was very worried about the Supreme Court and Congress misinterpreting what they wrote down, so they basically doubled the length of the constitution to unambiguously explain the new material they added in. The detailed lists of cities that the new Superliners were to pass through, and the precise deadlines for the completion of Superliner Railroads, didn't need to be in the constitution along with important stuff like the First Amendment, IMHO.
 
OOC: Oh boy could this thread go places....

I would think the concept of 'American Social Democracy' and the prosperity of the last few decades might not have happened, that's for sure. I mean, we might not have had the Advancement of American Health Care Act and the Education Acts, and the civil infrastructure improvements definitely wouldn't have happened....
To add: the slight recession in the late 1970s might not have needed to happen, as the government was prevented from moving the dollar off the gold standard and the mint was prevented from coining dollars in base metal rather than silver. When the silver price rose there was a shortage in coin for a while. Then they had to summon a new convention in 1984, that restrained many of the most radically (both conservatively and liberally) innovative provisions and also added about 6,000 words to the constitution. I wonder if the US could have made a more meaningful recovery from the Short Recession of 1978 if the Convention of 1969 didn't tie the Congress's hands so much (rather than a recovery where inflation and unemployment remained high).
 
. . . if the US could have made a more meaningful recovery from the Short Recession of 1978 . . .
Aren’t we pretty sure that some sort of reckoning with the end of the era of cheap energy was going to happen anyway?

And heck, once you think about it, 1977 leading to the recession of 1978 was pretty late in the game anyway! :p
 
Well, without the amendment specifically allowing for state senate divisions to be based on geographic areas and cities— if states had to follow through on making their senate divisions have roughly equal populations— I think it would ultimately lead to states abolishing their senate and going unicameral, as Nebraska. I mean, what would be the point of having two chambers with the same general principles? It's so obviously redundant, I can't imagine people accepting it for long.
 
I would like to see the OP present the world in the proposed timeline. What did the Constitutional Convention do?
 
Well, without the amendment specifically allowing for state senate divisions to be based on geographic areas and cities— if states had to follow through on making their senate divisions have roughly equal populations— I think it would ultimately lead to states abolishing their senate and going unicameral, as Nebraska. I mean, what would be the point of having two chambers with the same general principles? It's so obviously redundant, I can't imagine people accepting it for long.
That would definitely have happened. Also Affirmative Action would have been actually implemented in public universities instead of being repeatedly voted down by state legislatures in the 70s.
 
The lower age limit of the presidency would still be a thing, as without Dirksen's argument for its removal, it probably would've been kept.
 
Top