NAVIGATION
|
NEWS TIPS!RightMichigan.com
Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?Tweets about "#RightMi, -YoungLibertyMI, -dennislennox,"
|
Argus pushing for consitutional convention in 2010By Republican Michigander, Section News
There's been a push for a constitutional convention (con-con) by a small, but influential group of Lansing elites and their followers. This has been going on for the last three years. I'm strongly opposed to opening Pandora's Box here. The Argus fails to make a solid case for it here. In fact this is one of the sloppiest editorials I've ever seen from the Argus
Some background - I've been aware of the con-con push since December of 2006, almost exactly three years ago. This group of Lansing insiders, elitists, and termed out legislators (Frank Kelley, Joe Schwarz, Harry Gast, Phil Power, Debbie Dingell, and John Hertel) had their agenda they wanted to push. They did not like constitutional amendments, Headlee's protection on property taxes, term limits (I agree with that aspect), give the governor much more power, raise taxes, eliminate recalls, and end elections of judges and university trustees. That was as of 2006.
The issue died down, at least in public until July 2008. There was a debate on the Right Michigan website on this issue between myself (oppose), Dennis Lennox (support), and Chet Zarko (opposed).
July 10, 2008 - Michigan does not need a constitutional convention I rehashed the reasons listed in 2006, but Zarko caught something that reminds me what assume means. Ass-u-me. In the Right Michigan post, I also missed one reason more than any other why it needs to be opposed. Outside Lansing and Oakland Politics blogger Chetly Zarko pointed it out. He said this.
That is something I missed completely and is why the word assume makes an ass of "u" and me. I assumed these are covered by the campaign finance laws. Nope. Billionire radical Jon Stryker can dump his billions into these races without anyone knowing. He can also call his sister out of state so she can dump her billions. All the Lansing and DC interests can dump their money, and George Soros himself could dump money in there, without any one of us knowing about that. All those that want to increase our taxes, earmark spending, grab our guns, criminalize certain speech (Colorado just did it), and do whatever they can think of if they can get their people in there. April 09, The Argus had an editorial written by Rich Perlberg on this, who at the time hid his cards. I commented on that here
Soon after Perlberg's April editorial, I posted what was at risk. In short. Everything. Trial by jury for some misdemeanors, racial preferences, human cloning and embryonic research, recalls, elections of judicial officers, safeguards requiring that all bills are one subject (as compared to the federal government), death penalty, election of attorney general and secretary of state, property tax safeguards, eminent domain (Michigan is much more restrictive than the feds), collective bargaining provisions for police officers, and that's not getting to gun control, abortion, vouchers, and those issues, as well as the policy for amending the constitution.
Land wanted to require delegates to be citizens and residents of the district, wanted to set the primary election in February and general in May, establish policy of delegates to be the same as state rep/state senate provisions, make the term of office the 2010 and not 2012 boundaries addressing redistricting changes, vacancies of delegates much be of same political party as elected, require 2/3 vote for removal, and most importantly place delegates under authority of campaign finance laws. Right now, we don't know how it works. That finally gets us to the Argus editorial. From the Argus
The first question that needs to be asked is this. What is the problem in Lansing? Is it the constitution, a small part of the constitution, or is it the people in Lansing. To correct the first needs a con-con, but the second can be corrected by an amendment, and the last can be corrected by a simple election. More:
The Argus blames the people. That can't be corrected with a con-con. In fact, a con-con would make it worse if the problem is the current legislature. Why? Because delegates are elected in the same districts as the legislators. A con-con is a partisan election, with primary and general. In fact, it will be more hard-edged than normal because it is a special election with lower turnout. The Argus blew away its own theory with its reasoning.
I find it easy to imagine it being worse. Put the current people instead of circa 1963 people in charge of creating a constitution. The Argus then puts its own recommendations.
That can be done by amendment.
I highly disagree, but that can also be done by amendment.
Balanced budgets are already required.
Mixed views. The good and bad with this is that it makes bills easier to pass. Good bills can pass, but so can horrific bills. Bicameral legislatures check and balance each other so horrible crap does not get through.
A con-con is not needed for that. Districts can decide that on their own. In fact they should. That is something that should be a policy issue and not at the heart of the structure of the state government.
Both of those can be done by contracts. It's a policy issue, not a structural issue.
The Argus mentions their worries about special interests. Then they do the same thing they warn about with special interests here. I'm not against vouchers, but that is not something that should be in the constitution - the structure of government.
Why should this be in the constitution?
HELL NO. Right now we need more checks and balances on government power than ever before.
I don't like the current system on redistricting, but I don't like commissions here. I addressed that in the past. If donkeys and elephants pick the "nonpartisan" commission, expect even more entrenched incumbents. I'd rather have computer generated maps with limited breakpoints (County/City/Township). I don't support nonpartisan redistricting. I support nonBIASED redistricting. There is a BIG difference.
That's how it is in much of Nebraska.However, nobody here is stopping non-partisan candidates from running for any office in Michigan. They just don't win.
That was a sloppy and poor editorial with poor reasoning. They didn't do their homework. Most of those ideas don't need a con-con. Even when it comes to "nonpartisn elections," they are only partisan because the people want them to be. Independents can run with no party affiliation. They don't win. People vote for democrats or republicans in most cases. I have voted for 3rd party candidates in the past, and none of them have won. The Argus does not mention why a con-con is the best vehicle for these reforms, and also does not mention anything about the rules of the game involved in a con-con. In short, if the voters approve a con-con in 2010, there will be a partisan election to determine who the delegates will be. The delegates will then write a new constitution with everything, literally everything on the table, subject to these approximately 150 one-termers that do not ever have to face the people again. In addition, we do not know if delegates are subject to Michigan's campaign finance laws. I assume not. They are not specifically mentioned in the election laws. That means we probably have no idea who is funding the delegates, and if there is any disclosure. Jon Stryker is a billionaire and is the bankroller of the democrats here in Michigan. Expect millions to come flying in from Stryker, Soros, out of state interests, and the like. This is the holy grail of power, and they know that.
While we may win big, especially in 2010 with Obama and Granholm's piss poor job, we may also lose everything as well. I don't like that risk with the constitution. It should not be messed with more than it absolutely has to be.
Argus pushing for consitutional convention in 2010 | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 hidden)
Argus pushing for consitutional convention in 2010 | 2 comments (2 topical, 0 hidden)
|
Poll
Related Links+ Heads up! Property Tax Raisers want to change Michigan's Constitution and eliminate safeguards - 12-13-2006+ Right Michigan + July 10, 2008 - Michigan does not need a constitutional convention + August 12, 2008 - Updated + Outside Lansing + Oakland Politics + here + Soon after Perlberg's April editorial, I posted what was at risk. + Also in April, Terri Land pushed for safeguards regarding the con-con in case it passes. Those were ignored by the legislature + From the Argus + Also by Republican Michigander |