Why is this the case?

Why do we need to amend the constitution rather than force the government to work as it should?

Why should anyone give into RMGN on a point they haven't proven?

Why don't we, rather than curling up in the fetal position and begging for mercy, go on the offensive and point out the circumstances behind this, the partisan nature of it, and how detrimental it is?

Why don't the Republicans STAND FOR SOMETHING, rather than just continue to placate the state in their anger?

Why don't the Republicans use this opportunity to remind the folks that the same people that brought you the government shut down and the tax increases last year want to seize the whole government this year?

What, precisely, would your fixes do to make every thing run perfectly?

And, if they don't, why should we rebuild the whole thing and allow everyone with an axe to grind to help, when we can tinker at the edges and get the same result?

We can put forth a constitutional amendment that requires the entire legislature, upon election, to be thrown directly into prison.

And the people are so angry  they'd pass it.

And you know what?  It wouldn't fix a thing.

None of this talk about Con Cons, or amending this or that, serves any purpose but to fool the people into thinking they are fixing a problem.

I pointed this out yesterday -- saying a convention would become an ideological tussle. However, isn't competition a good thing? As conservatives, we generally oppose campaign finance regulations because they place limits on free speech and political participation.

I'm not afraid of competition. I am afraid of a skeleton crew of people like us fighting two armies of money and people. That's nearly a suicide mission. I'm a veteran of low budget campaigns against bigger money, but I still have about a 50% win rate. That's good in baseball, but in the UFC, that gets you out of a job. Unless we are lucky and catch them off guard like the Concerned Taxpayers Group did with about $1800 against the school lobbies ( $4000+unreported radio ad+issue ads in newsletters that ran at least another $1500) over the enhancement millage, we're going to have our hands full. They can make a mistake. We can't. I've been in two major ballot proposal fights. We won big once 66-34 with a surprise attack and another time we got completely routed and our ass kicked about 65-35. Looking at what I think we are up against, I'm partial to voting no in 2010 and avoiding this fight.

1. As conservatives, what is our goal? What can we GAIN from going out on the field? What can we LOSE from going out on the field? The Constitutional Convention is an "all in" Texas hold em bet. Is it worth risking it all to maybe gain some?  

2. Know the opponents. Who will have an agenda there? Who has a reason to push for this? I mentioned 11 things the new "Citizens for Michigan" organization wanted. Politicians hate term limits. They want that gone. The Affirmative Action and Gay Rights lobby wants to undoe a few constitutional amendments regarding preferences and marriage. They'll be involved. Hanger-ons want favors and appointments to universities. Reward jobs for retirement. The Plaintiff Tort lawyers want a new Supreme Court. There's big money. The school boards, MEA, and municipal governments want to get rid of Headlee and Proposal A. That's big organization there to go along with the money. Politicians don't want to be recalled after raising taxes. There's more changes. All those people have agendas, just based on those public proposals. That's not to mention the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Free Speech supporters, any abortion issue, and anything else that could be removed or inserted in that Constitution.

3. Delegates are elected on partisan lines. Conservatives are not just fighting democrats though here. We have a lot of establishment republican politicians who are tax/fee and spenders. The Joe Schwarz, Harry Gast, Ken Sikkema, and Rick Johnson wing of the party who helped create that mess that led to a tax increase in 2006. We have to beat both. The law says this about delegates:

If a majority of the electors voting on the question decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, at an election to be held not later than six months after the proposal was certified as approved, the electors of each representative district as then organized shall elect one delegate and the electors of each senatorial district as then organized shall elect one delegate at a partisan election

Do we have a primary and a general election, or just a General election? If just a general, how does one get nominated? The executive committee of the county? Congressional District committees?Precinct delegates? Any of those setups have completely different rules. We need to know the rules, whether we support a con-con or oppose it so if we DO have one, we know WHAT to do quickly. This is likely going to be a low turnout election as well. February or May of 2011. The MEA is a master of those. Be Prepared.

4. KNOWING who has an agenda here with this, if we have a con-con, how are we going to defend Headlee? Defend the ban on racial preferences? Defend the right to keep and bear arms? Defend free speech? Defend our right to recall bad politicians? Defend our courts? Are we organized enough and have the resources to keep up with Stryker's money, the Tort lawyers and their money, and the foot soldiers of the MEA, school boards and local governments? Do we have the ability to be that organized if need be? I can tell you from experience that organizing conservatives and libertarians is like hearding cats. We're indpendent types.

Every single one of them are being advocated by SOCIALISTS. In EVERY case. They rightly see our Constitutions as the last obstacle between them and their socialist goals.

In EVERY case, it is the socialists asking for a convention.

Either this writter is well-intentioned, but unaware of his bedfellows or he is a socialist.

Here's a clue, see if they are in any "education" groups. If so, you have yourself a socialist.

And last, why do we need a constitutional convention when we already have trouble getting the government to obey the one we have? Again, this is a socialist/communist mindset to create NEW laws and rules when the original ones are not being enforced.

90% of our problems would be solved if the government simply followed the consitution. This crap and crap like it, even coming from "republicans" is a very effective psychological trick. They point out a problem, you agree that it is a problem, then offer a solution.

Are you a conservative, or just a republican, Nick?

You know why nobody signed that petition to recall Dean in Grand Rapids? Because you didn't add the republicans to the list of people to recall.

The public is NOT interested in this partisan BS. We are ALL beginning to fully understand that both parties are no good.

Be a conservative, and I'll be interested in listening to you. Talk like a republican and play shell games and blame games with partisan BS, and NOBODY is listening to you.

When I think of all the dirty and underhanded methods they used to fight changes I felt were to the benefit of taxpayers, it scares me all the way to my bones.  If nothing else, the way they disregard the present Constitution should give you pause to place the responsibility in their hands. The implication is that we are not smart enough to know what is good for us.  I think we have a better understanding than they think and that is why thy want control.

If they spend half the time trying to govern according to the present Constitution instead of trying to find ways around it, we would be far better off. If you check out some of the problems they hope to correct, you will see that it was caused by the enabling legislation of our elected officials and their efforts to subvert the original intent.

There's a ton of stuff I'd love to change, but ON THE WHOLE, the document isn't that bad.

You've blown your credibility by saying ending preferences shouldn't be in the Constitution.  If it isn't, U-M, which is Constitutionally independent from the legislature, could not be regulated in its preferential conduct.  

And the amendment process allows the Constitution to grow as it has - despite your desire for a "cleaner" document.  It allows the people to overrule bad judges, or obstinate university presidents, or special-interest dominated legislatures.

Competition is a good thing.  The problem is that there WON'T BE COMPETITION IN CON-CON DELEGATE RACES.  Sure, at the edges there will be some.  There'll be spectacular individual races that people point to.  But the one systemic problem that does exist - special interest domination of the playing field - will continue, and they will crush the real reformers and the type of "competition" you naively refer to.

A mock-college convention among youthful ideologues, yourself included, is a far flung thing from what the reality would look like.  I think there's a role for such simulations - and we could extract and even test ideas in such simulations - but the risks of real conventions with real delegates really on the take are far different (no kids in your simulation had agendas, or clients, or years of vested interest accumulations, or friends, or foes).

And I came out against this two years ago, when CFM came out, not last night.  And I mentioned CFM NO WHERE IN MY short argument, despite your claim I did.

And by the way, if the people want a convention, they'll get to vote on that in 2010 no matter what - and if they vote yes, I'll change my mind.  Why have a second vote on the same question this year and then in 2010 again if there is a no this year.  Let's wait the normal process out, fight the RMGN folks this cycle, and move forward.