Why I don't fear a US Constitutional Convention and yet still do not want one

Also read Article 1 section 2
paragraph 3 of the U.S.
Constitution and why you
aren't being represented!

There are four methods to change the Constitution via the Amendment process.  

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” -Article V, The United States Constitution, 1787^[1]

That is to say:

• 2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators. This process has been used for 26 successful amendments.
• 2/3rds approval from the House and Senate, followed-up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states.  This process has been used for 1 successful amendment.
• 2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress (House and Senate) to create a Constitutional Convention, followed-up by ratification by 3/4ths of all states' legislators.  This process has never been used.
• 2/3rds of state legislators applying to Congress to create a Constitutional Convention, followed up by ratification by state ratifying conventions within 3/4ths of the states.  This process has never been used.

Guess what‽ It's actually harder to change the US Constitution via the Constitutional Convention method.  Congress is still heavily involved in the process. 

A Constitutional Convention doesn't get to magically change the Constitution at will.  All the Constitutional Convention does is provide a forum separate from the US House and Senate to discuss a proposed Amendment, then vote to bring the proposal to individual states, with a 2/3rds super majority required to do so. The requirement for ratification of the Amendment is still the same. 3/4ths of all state legislatures or 3/4 of ratifying conventions from all states.

The Constitutional Convention is a very unstable route to take, as fundamental questions about the process are not addressed in the Constitution.^[2] For example, there are no quorum rules for discussions once the convention is underway.  Also, does each state get one representative at the convention, or is representation equal to the Electoral College with voting among the representatives of a state to decide their state's vote?  Then, what happens if a state rescinds its application for the convention and the convention is no longer requested by the required 2/3rd of states?  What happens if such an application is rescinded during or after the convention takes place?  Since the convention is still organized by the US Congress, does Congress have the ability to limit the scope of the convention (i.e., "what's your hot take on this proposed amendment" as opposed to "go ahead and write a new amendment")?  Do the state applications limit the scope themselves?  If the scope is limited, could Congress or Federal Courts invalidate the convention approval if the scope is deemed to be exceeded?  Etc.

Anyway, I foresee that we'd have nothing short of a political quagmire if a Constitution Convention is ever established.  Most likely result is no changes will come of it, save for a bunch of lawsuits questioning every step along the way.  Those lawsuits may answer some questions about the process by the courts, but that would only benefit future generations in their attempts to have their own Constitutional Conventions.

Also see: How to find your US representatives and tweet them

Microsoft Settlement Refund...umm, wow Part 2

I received the remainder of my Microsoft Anti-trust Settlement the other day.  It was roughly $5.  I received the bulk of my settlement funds a decade ago.  I'm not really sure why I was owed an additional $5, though for some reason this amount didn't surprise me.  The amazing thing is that yet again, Microsoft knew my current address; this time my personal address.  It is literally 10 years later from my previous refund check, 13 years since I sent in my voucher request, and 14 years since this odd saga began in 2002 after the settlement of the lawsuit.  But, the saga actually extends back to 1990 (backup link).

Previous Post, August 14, 2006

I finally received my Microsoft voucher

Previous Post, September 30, 2003

Microsoft Settlement Refund...umm, wow [Part 1].

Significantly higher rate of foodborne illness and death in cities with plastic bag bans

In 2007, San Francisco, CA became the first county in the US (or anywhere) to ban plastic bags at grocery stores. A 2012 study titled Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illness by Jonathan Klick University of Pennsylvania and Joshua d. Wright of George Mason University stated the following,

We find that the San Francisco County ban is associated with a 46 percent increase in deaths from foodborne illnesses. 

The study not only links deaths to the plastic bag ban, but also the additional costs of illness for those who get sick, but do not die.  What is the reason for more people getting sick?  The study claims it is because we are reusing our reusable shopping bags without cleaning them between uses!

The study goes on to point out that similar increases in illnesses from foodborne diseases have been seen in other communities that have since also banned plastic bags.

Ick!

I pointed out this potential problem about six years ago in my Tuesday Two/Epoch-Fail series, where I stated,

And what of reusable canvas bags? Heh. Guess what. You have to buy them. They get very unsanitary very quickly. Wanna guess how many patrons are not washing them regularly? There are reasons behind our strict food handling guidelines, and canvas bags now represent a very weak link in food safety

The Grocery Bag Bans and Foodborne Illness study isn't perfect, but it does coincide with my statements.  However, it's not just about keeping bags washed.  The study finds that we store the reusable bags in places that tend to breed bacteria, such as car trunks.

The study also points out that the overall cost of the ban doesn't come close to breaking even with the benefit seen to the environment as a result of the ban.  In other words, the cost of plastic bag bans is substantially greater than the cost benefit to the environment!

The problem is that we have local governments making rules about society without proper research in vain attempts at social engineering.  Before the plastic bag bans went into effect, these governments should've found and implemented safe alternatives.  It's been eights years since that original ban, and we still do not have safe alternatives even being proposed!  What we do have is more cities and counties pushing for expansion of the ban, despite the harm it causes us and the lack of actual benefit to the environment.

Jury Duty in the Bay State (They finally caught me)

I've managed to avoid serving on a Jury for over twenty years.  I did have to go in for Jury Duty one time for a case in California, but didn't get picked.  Massachusetts works a bit differently. They don't call juries for individual cases, but rather call in a pool of people who are made available to any cases that happen to be in the process of jury selection for that day.  You have to make yourself available for the day for any cases that might call for a jury.  If you get dismissed from one jury, you have to go back to the pool.  There is still a high chance that you'll be called in for another case later that day.  The advantage of this is that you serve for one day in the pool, or if you get picked, you serve for one case.  Once complete, you are off the hook from having to serve for three years.

I was dismissed from the first case of the day.  That case was predicted to have a 4 to 5 day length.  After returning to the jury pool, several of us were called into another case.  That case was for a DUI, and the judge predicted the trial would be complete before the end of the day.

The case was simple enough.  A man was pulled over in the middle of the night for suspicion of driving a vehicle while being impaired by alcohol.  It wasn't a straightforward DUI case.  There was no alcohol blood level evidence presented.  The officer, who was forthrightly doing his duty, did a fine job in identifying a driver who was possibly impaired.  His testimony was based solely on observations of the car for a very brief period of time, a smell of alcohol within the vehicle once he approached, a smell of alcohol on the driver's breath, and somewhat convoluted description of field sobriety tests and results.  The driver passed one test, and technically failed another, though not in a manner that one would expect to rise to the level of being impaired while driving.

There was a lot of repetition of statements and evidence while the trial went on for a few hours. There was evidence that had nothing to do with the case.  There was contradictory evidence presented by the prosecutor.  There was flaws in the evidence that the defense attorney pointed out very well.

In the end, the jury of six people, including myself, came to the conclusion that the evidence did not prove the individual was impaired.  I'm sure the District Attorney's office was a little disappointed by our jury's ruling, but they really didn't make their case.

The big surprize for me was the frankness and approachability of the judge.  He walked his jury through the process from beginning to end, with the full understanding that most of us had no idea how anything worked.  He explained the law well, as well.  After the trial was over, he visited with us one last time to see if there was anything in the process that we felt needed improvement.  None of us could think of anything.  I think we were just grateful to be on a quick in-and-out case that didn't have a lot of evidence to review.  As suggested by the Judge, we were done before the end of the day.

Did I come out of the process with a new found respect for it?  Not really.  I wouldn't mind serving on smaller, one-day cases at some future point. I am just thankful I didn't get tied up with a case that lasts a week.