Should Michigan have a Constitutional Convention

The RMGN debacle is evidence of what bad can come from convention.

Special interests will own the delegates, particularly since the Dems are sitting on the reform Marty Knollenberg proposed in Oct. 2007 that I pointed out to him last year.  The Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1977 forgot - understandably due to the rareness of conventions - to include delegates in reporting category defintions.  And limit definitions.

Democrats - I'm calling Ward Connerly if there's a convention and there no law to say he can't give me one giant donation, which I'd never have to report.  And I will run if there is a Con-Con, despite my hatred for it - largely to protect MCRI, but also to protect the initiative process, Headlee, and all that the people have earned in the last 40 years in at least marginally checking government excess.

Republicans - Stryker nightmare.

It's not individual candidates that evade the radar - its the potential for competing blocs of "sponsored" candidates.  A Herculean battle would occur.

You think the raw costs of a convention in terms of administrative costs, staff, space, etc. are high.  The political costs, and the subtle changes that can only ultimately favor the elite power interests since they are best positioned, are huge.

The tax debate, and (sorry RM, I love ya but have to disagree here) the fee increases, etc that people rail about didn't happen because of term limits.  They happened because there was a legitimate debate about the size and scope of government, and one side lost.

Changing the Constitution won't change this.  Can anyone point to anything that has happened post term limits that can be blamed exclusively on term limits?  Or is that just a scapegoat because our side lost?  Or there scapegoat when they lose?

Government shutdown pre term limits? Check

Tax increases pre term limits? Check

Expansion of the Executive Departments because the legislature wasn't fulfilling it's role?  Check

Budget deficits causing problems? Check

"Special Interests" having too much influence? Check

And the list goes on and on...

We didn't run perfectly pre term limits, and we don't run that way now for a more basic reason.

Our Constitution, and the Federal, are excellent documents that spell out specific functions and are masterfully crafted "how to" manuals on how to run things. (for the most part, at least)

Except for one problem.  The problem that has plagued all societies since the beginning.

What is this fault that cannot be gotten rid of, that keeps everything from working properly?

US.  Human beings.  We fight, we argue, we don't get our way, we try and find ways around things... and no document written can stop us.

The compromises reached, and the  checks and blances implemented, seek to address these.  And in theory they do a good job.  But someone will find some way to get around them.  

So things muddle along, and they get worse, and rather than stand up and educate and make  arguments and win over the electorate, both sides  throw mud and decry "negative politics" and "special interests" and "partisanship" and all the other alien powers that keep us from getting our way.

And why does all this happen?  Because politics is that important.

Just my two pence.

And RM, would you mind sending some of that funding my way?  This sounds like a perfect excuse for my to polish and sharpen my sword (metaphorically speaking, of course).

Warrior For The Cause,

Those with a special interest to benefit their agenda.  Such as, doing away with the ability for the likes of a Ward Connorly to help in the promoting of doing away with the unequitable "Affirmative Action."  

L. Brooks Patterson and company had this on their agenda.  They did not want to allow out-of-state funding or voices to help with doing away with the likes of the un-Constitutional "Affirmative Action."

There are no draw bridges to pull up once a Con-Con is started and I am sure that neither the likes of you or I will have any oversight -- let alone the ability to have ourselves appointed to sit on the committee or board of a CON-CON.

Nothing prevents conventions from being called other times.

To me, this is like inviting people to submit their versions of how the Constitution should read.  Calling for such a convention any other time would look like an obvious political move.  This provision allows people to hide behind the Constitution itself.

Without research as yet to the contrary, I'd favor amending to eliminate this very provision; make people work to prove their schemes from start to finish.

A Convention is the worst thing we could do to the Constitution.  If you don't believe me, read the section providing for the 2010 vote on it.