Bring up the question of whether Illinois residents should call for a Constitutional Convention and you’re likely to get a response like this one from local blogger Brad Carter. Whenever I’ve brought the subject up on my blog, that has inevitably been the “conventional” wisdom (ha ha) from commentators.
But today in the State Journal-Register is an op-ed piece in favor of a “Con Con,” as it’s called for short. Of course, it’s written by a Chicago Democrat, which is sure to be brought up by critics as a reason to be wary. Nevertheless, I thought he made an interesting argument:
Critics from both the left and the right say that holding such a convention will open a “Pandora’s Box.” In fact, there is no doubt that various front groups will be created and funded by the very special interests that want to preserve the status quo, which has led us to our present morass.
The purpose of these groups will be to coax voters into accepting our current dysfunctional government by convincing them that they should fear the unknown outcomes of a Con-Con. I submit that the majority of Illinoisans doubt that things could get much worse.
He goes on to explain the safeguards that are in place — most notably that the final result has to be approved by the voters — and concludes by saying we shouldn’t pass up an opportunity to improve things because of fear:
We have no way of knowing what the process will bring, but fear of the unknown is no reason to shy away from debate. Doing so simply signifies an acceptance of the current system.
Indeed, there was no small amount of risk when the founding fathers decided to break ties with England. Think about the daunting task of forging a new nation from scratch. We face nothing quite so challenging here in Illinois (this would be a peaceful revising of the constitution, not a call to arms after all), yet we seem to have lost our courage even in this.
It isn’t easy reforming government, nor should we expect it to be. Yes, a Con Con would be a risk, and yes it would be a fight to improve things, and yes we might even lose some things we like about the current constitution. But is the status quo really a better option? Should we allow fear to keep us from fighting for something better for Illinois?
I want to make sure my position is clear on this subject. I in now way am advocating for the status quo, I want serious change to the Illinois Constitution. However, it is much safer and easier to amend the document than to risk losing more. Illinois is on its 4th constitution, each time we have lost a little more of our rights.
Brad — Can you give examples of rights we lost in each successive revision?
The government cannot take away rights, any more than they can give them.
not to go into great detail, but:
1818 – first constitution, mainly dealing with statehood issues, ie. structure of government and responsibilities.
1848 – mostly dealt with commerce within the state and further defined executive and judicial powers. However, the big “wrong” with this constitution was only the winning party was allowed to serve in state government jobs. Also it expanded the borrowing power of the state (read more taxes).
1870 – mostly dealt with further power to regulate commerce and for the first time defined county and municiple authority. A department of state education was formed. This constitution removed ALL limitations to legislator pay (name your own pay, taxpayers be damned). Cumulative voting for legislators (post civil war reconstruction).
1970 – Dealt mainly with administering more power to local governments. State sales tax was created. Home rule for certian municipalities (more taxing authority). Legalized gerrymandering was addressed. Some judges now are appointed rather than elected (no longer directly answerable to the people). This constitution limited gun rights “subject to police powers,…” though police powers have never been defined. Line item veto to the governor.
There is more, but that is off the top of my head. Anyway, in each constitution the peoples voice was limited in some way and/or new taxing authority was granted.
The main thing is, if we write a new constitution, it will be an up or down vote on the whole thing, whereas an amendment process allows the people to vote directly on each article. The later is far preferrable. If there is a new constitution written, I think the odds are that several rights will be lost or limited (including, but not limited to, the right to bear arms), and the only “rights” likely to be added is the “right to an abortion” and non-descrimination based upon “gender identity”. I don’t see anything good coming out of a new constitution, because it will be written by the same clowns currently occupying the legislature. I rather pay them to do nothing than pay them to make things worse.
Okay CJ, I have changed my position and I am now in favor of a Con-Con. See my site for details.