Of our regular commenters, @truth and Anastasios are for it due to a range of issues including the current dysfunction/gridlock in government and the many unsettled questions that have built up. I'm highly opposed because I fear the unintended consequences of changing a form of government that has evolved over time and served us well.
Here's a review of most of the comments so far, starting with the comment that raised the issue.
Truth > Spin
"I now think we need to address structural issues before we can effectively deal with policy matters in a manner befitting their seriousness. The system has too many points of leverage that are captured by fragmented interests and they have every incentive to maintain the status quo. It used to be that gridlock eventually gave way because the benefit of action outweighed inaction. Today, it is more the case that the benefit of inaction is greater.
I don't think replacing the current crop of people will do the trick. The problems are too endemic and part of how we nominate and then elect Members of Congress.*
As such, I think we need to have a serious national debate over some changes the Constitution and think it is time that a convention to do so be convened.
The other thing I'll add to what you wrote is that not only does someone willing to work with the other side risk being betrayed by the other side later, but they also risk being attacked by purists from within their own party for the heresy of such efforts. I recognize that this has more recently been true within the GOP, but the same thing occurs on both sides.
* For the most part, this criticism is aimed at the House, although the Senate could use a good tune up, too."
ModeratePoli
"Hold it right there!!! I learned something very long along--that a constitutional convention is VERY risky, and I don't want to be messing with those risks right now.
I am very risk averse, particularly downside risks. I don't know what what we have to gain with constitutional changes, but we have a lot to lose, namely checks and balances. There is no way I'd call for a convention without some blueprints available and a strong belief that it will be better. The change that I'll be convinced without seeing those blueprints--zero."
Anastasios
"...I agree with Truth that the Madisonian system is dysfunctional and ultimately unworkable, and we would be far better off with the much more intelligent Parliamentary systems one sees in Europe and Canada."
Moderatepoli
"I don't want to monkey with the Constitution and add in things that were never there. That would be horrible, and we know who does that..." [a joke]
Truth > Spin
"So are you a Strict Constructionist then in interpretation? Or do you want the document to live only via the readings of Senate confirmed wise men (and Latinas)? ...Don't you think we could all benefit from deciding for once and for all (until next time) whether the Constitution protects the right for private, individual citizens to own firearms and to what degree, if any, that can be curtailed?
Or how about whether indefinite detention of suspected terrorists or evil doers is allowable?
Or whether a fetus can be terminated, and under what conditions?
Don't you think we could all use some black and white on those and other matters? ...
I understand the risks, but my view is that the risk of continuing as we are is greater. I'd accept some bad outcomes from my perspective in order to gain some certainty and the chance to gain positive outcomes. I think too that the process of a convention itself could be a boon to civic engagement and thought."
