WI: US Consitutution Mandates Periodical Constitutional Conventions?

Pretty much what it says: what if the US Constitution mandated Constitutional Conventions to be held after a certain period of time?

I'd like to throw out a period of fifty years into the mix: what does a convention in 1837 look like?
 
I was going to say every 30 years, once a generation

But with more constitutional conventions, what would the amendment process be for? Would ammendments be for smaller changes that are needed while larger debates are held for constitutional conventions?

For 1837 -
- Reaffirmation of Union from Hartford convention perhaps? Wording of binding union from Articles of Confederation be applied.
- Judicial review of Supreme court
- Congress has power to purchase land as part of treaty (may not be needed)
- Nullification crisis would be ironed out
- protective tarrifs
- Bank of USA
- internal improvements, maybe but it seems like Congressional laws deal with these nicely

Slavery and slavery expansion might still go untouched or acknowledgement of compromise to alternate free and slave upon admission.

Would Texas come up?

I like this idea down the road for our times. In our century it would be how to make our government more and more of the people and for the people as our population increases but the representation is the same.
 
Each convention would probably have the federal government become more powerful, and the US could become a unitary state.
 
I was going to say every 30 years, once a generation

But with more constitutional conventions, what would the amendment process be for? Would ammendments be for smaller changes that are needed while larger debates are held for constitutional conventions?

For 1837 -
- Reaffirmation of Union from Hartford convention perhaps? Wording of binding union from Articles of Confederation be applied.
- Judicial review of Supreme court
- Congress has power to purchase land as part of treaty (may not be needed)
- Nullification crisis would be ironed out
- protective tarrifs
- Bank of USA
- internal improvements, maybe but it seems like Congressional laws deal with these nicely

Slavery and slavery expansion might still go untouched or acknowledgement of compromise to alternate free and slave upon admission.

Would Texas come up?

I like this idea down the road for our times. In our century it would be how to make our government more and more of the people and for the people as our population increases but the representation is the same.

So we would have conventions in 1887,1927,1977,and 2027? Very interesting indeed.

I could see the 1837 convention being fairly to incredibly messy. Does this convention only hold for amending the Constitution or wholesale rewriting? I see Nullification written out completely and totally unsubstantiated, but I can see men of Clay's and Webster's gifts really allowing for a more sustainable slavery expansion. HZN, I think you nailed the issues right on the head. I can see some curbing of executive power in 1837, because Jackson did piss off a lot of people, but I can see a permanent Bank Charter as well, the uncharter is what caused the 1837 Panic afterall
 
Jefferson proposed having a brand new constitution every twenty years. First one would be in 1817, 1837, etc.

Hard to believe any convention up to the 1860s wouldn't be consumed by slavery questions. Would this accelerate or prevent the Civil War?

----------------------
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1000.htm

"Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates. By the European tables of mortality, of the adults living at any one moment of time, a majority will be dead in about nineteen years. At the end of that period, then, a new majority is come into place; or, in other words, a new generation. Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution, so that it may be handed on with periodical repairs from generation to generation to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816. ME 15:42
 
Now that you've provided the real, twenty years figure, I'd prefer to discuss that (though the years would be 1807, 1827, 1847, etc.).

So everything goes as in OTL until 1807...what does the 1807 Convention discuss? J

Jefferson's highly unpopular and harmful embargo is in effect, and is probably a huge concern for the New England states: those states will likely want something in effect that stops the central government from being able to halt trade with states the nation isn't at war with.

Marbury vs. Madison is recent history. Will the Democratic-Republicans want to redefine the Supreme Court's powers as being only applicable to appellate jurisdiction as opposed to Marshall's view of original jurisdiction, or to ensure that the Court cannot deal with any issues beyond jurisdiction?

Anyone else have any issues that are going to be seen as important to work out in 1807?
 
Last edited:
Does this convention only hold for amending the Constitution or wholesale rewriting?

Probably be best to have some very basic skeleton, with the Constitutional Conventions filling in the rest. Otherwise, what's preventing some convention from just writing out the requirement for periodic future conventions? Or erasing basic freedoms during a time of war (think how much more damage something like the PATRIOT Act would've done if it was during a constitutional convention, written into the constitution)?
 
Well, the fact that Jefferson wanted them every 20 years doesn't mean that 20 years will be the timeframe eventually agreed upon. Although it really helps that he happens to be in office for the first 20-year mark.

It wasn't long ago that Burr killed Hamilton, then resumed his duties in the Senate. It may not survive future Constitutional Conventions, but the 1807 one probably sees a clause whereby members of the Federal government are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of their home states regardless of where they are and what their job is? Also, the Louisiana Purchase was widely viewed as unconstitutional at the time, albeit a fantastic idea. The 1807 Constitution probably has a clause whereby the Executive is authorized to purchase or acquire new territories.

And what happens if a new Constitution can't be ratified? (I'm thinking 1847, by which point slavery and western expansion are both hot enough to prove irrevocable stumbling blocks.) Is the old Constitution retained after a suitable period for debate?
 
Last edited:
Pretty much what it says: what if the US Constitution mandated Constitutional Conventions to be held after a certain period of time?

I'd like to throw out a period of fifty years into the mix: what does a convention in 1837 look like?

I agree this is an very interesting WI!

Don't know enough detail about the earlier years to give much input.

Could see a slavery comprise (mason/dixon?, others) being written into the Constitution.

COuld make it harder for Lincoln to use the office against the South, thus could reassure the South of their ability to survive his administration.

If random butterflies don't take care of the issue some unforeseeable way.
 
Top