Nissan and Honda are in talks for a merger. The two companies are looking to "combine resources in order to remain competitive" in the face of China's powerhouse auto industry, said CNN. But the need is particularly acute for Nissan, which saw its alliance with French automaker Renault "collapse" in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. Profits for the company's six-month period ending in September "plunged" 94%, said CNN. Some observers suspect Nissan "could face bankruptcy as soon as 2026."

Nissan was "once a symbol of Japan's carmaking prowess," said The Wall Street Journal. But the company has been "slower than rivals in refreshing its lineup" and fell behind in the race to build electric vehicles. Nissan also has "yet to fully recover" from the 2018 arrest of former executive Carlos Ghosn for financial crimes. 

Losing ground in China
The Honda-Nissan talks are a sign of the "existential threat of Chinese EVs to Japan," said Reuters. Both companies have lost ground in China as BYD and other domestic carmakers capture the rising market. This presents a problem for the entire Japanese car industry, which is the "strongest sector in the world's fourth-largest economy." 

Keeping pace with Chinese automakers means "rolling out electric vehicles" while also selling the "petrol cars that will finance the shift," said The Economist. Investors are "unconvinced" that Nissan has a "clear strategy" for EVs or hybrids, but a company containing Honda and Nissan together could "invest more in technology to catch up with rivals."

'Won't be a magic fix'
Carmaker mergers "often falter," said The New York Times. The process of combining two large manufacturing companies requires "reconciling different technologies, models and approaches to doing business." The 1998 merger of Chrysler and Daimler shows that it's difficult to smooth those differences when thousands of jobs are on the line. 

A merger, "should it take place, won't be a magic fix for either company," Rob Stumpf said at InsideEVs. The proceedings could take up to five years, according to one analyst, and that "leaves a lot of time for the competition to sprint ahead of both brands."

The U.S. Constitution is more than two centuries old. It hasn't been amended for three decades. Is it finally time for a rewrite?

Some Republicans have been pushing for a new constitutional convention for "more than a decade," said NC Newsline. North Carolina legislators last month voted to ask Congress to assemble a convention to address congressional term limits, adding to an existing "pile of requests." A conservative group called Convention of States is pushing a broader effort to call a convention to "limit federal power and rein in reckless spending." But the convention method of changing the Constitution has never been used.

Democrats worry about a "'runaway convention' where anything and everything is on the table," Hayes Brown said at MSBNC. There's a precedent, after all: The original Constitutional Convention in 1787 was called to amend the Articles of Confederation. The founders instead "abolished the articles" and came up with the Constitution instead.

How would a convention work? 
A "simple line" in Article V of the Constitution lets Congress call a convention if "two-thirds of state legislatures have called for one," said The New York Times. The threshold may have already been met. Scholars say most states have "long-forgotten requests on the books" that could trigger the provision if Congress chose to act. But it's "not clear how seriously Republicans would pursue a convention."

There are no precedents to show how a gathering could and should work. Instead, there's a "wide range of policy and procedural questions" that would have to be settled by Congress before the work begins. If a convention does occur, any amendments would have to be approved by 38 states. That "arguably acts as a deterrent" to any big changes.

What are the cases for and against a convention?
The Constitution needs "significant, even drastic, revision" to function properly in the modern era, Sanford Levinson, a law professor at the University of Texas, said in the Journal of Legislation & Public Policy. A convention would make it possible for Americans to "imagine what kind of system would make the most sense for 21st-century realities."

But the lack of clear guidelines poses a risk, said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean at the UC Berkeley School of Law. There's "no way to know" what choices Congress might make about how a convention would work since it has "never happened."