Constitutional Convention for Illinois

Here is the debate that took place on WTTW, Channel 11, in Chicago on Tuesday October 28. It lasts 17 minutes:

http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=42,8,1&pl=New%20Video%202

In the end, your decision about how to vote on a new constitutional convention for Illinois on November 4 comes down to a choice between fear and faith.

The opponents of a constitutional convention want you to choose fear:

· To be afraid that radicals on both sides of the political spectrum will somehow hijack the constitutional convention and do all kinds of mischief on “social” issues.

· To be afraid that the existing power brokers will somehow hijack the constitutional convention and control it.

See our VIDEO page- pass it a along!

Excerpt:
"Well, two things:
First, all will not be lost. Article I, Section X, of the U.S. Constitution—which trumps Illinois' governing document—forbids states from passing laws "impairing the obligation of contracts."
Existing government pension plans are contracts. So if a new constitution eliminated the pension guarantees, that elimination would not be retroactive.
Even McCauley conceded Wednesday when we spoke that taking away government pension benefits that public employees already have earned would require "overturning decades of rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court."

In a two-hour debate on Milt Rosenberg's Extension 720 show on WGN radio last Tuesday night, Greg Baise, president of the Illinois Manufacturers Association and representing the main group opposing a new Illinois constitutional convention repeatedly referred to the constitution as "just a piece of paper."

Over 1000 people rallied on Sunday October 12 for a new constitutional convention. None of them appeared to be ignorant or mean-spirited or out to take someone's pension or civil rights away. They appeared to be people who want real change in how business is done in Illinois and recognize a new constitutional convention as the best and most immediate way of making that happen.

The diversity of the crowd was amazing: Blacks, Latinos, whites, Asians, Muslims, Jews, Christians, men, women, young adults, older adults, Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Independents.

In our biggest victory to date on the constitutional convention, the Chicago Tribune endorsed a “yes” vote on their editorial page last Sunday. The entire text is below. If you feel so moved, you can comment online at

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-1005edit1oct05,0,847329.s...

although you will have to register first.

Eric Zorn has a good column in the Tribune on the sleazy efforts to kill the constitutional convention. Check it out at http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/09/conconcon.....

There is a lot of responses to his column as well. Somebody identified as Tallis writes: "If you can identify one NECESSARY change that's needed to the Illinois Constitution, I'd be willing to listen. But in the absence of needed change, voting for the ConCon simply to spite the powers-that-be may well be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face."

The thing that the opponents to the constitutional convention fail to acknowledge is that a constitutional convention makes common sense. When you have something as broken as Springfield is, you have to do something to fix it. The opportunity for a constitutional convention comes around only once a generation. If we vote it down now, we won't get a chance for another one until 2028, when I will be long out to pasture.

The Chicago Tribune is considering it's position on a new constitutional convention and has invited comments by readers at http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/vox_pop/2008/09/the-edit-boar-1.html

Here is what I posted:

Honestly, a constitutional convention should be a no brainer for the Tribune editorial board to endorse. Here are ten good reason why you should do so:

1. You have documented the mess in Springfield and have pushed for a constitutional amendment allowing recall of our public officials.