Constitutional Convention for Illinois

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.

Just in case you haven't seen it, there is a new pitch out there for donations to oppose the constitutional convention by the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. It says: "We must not allow our state's legislative process to be compromised by some individuals' overzealous desire to supersede the current democratic method."

Gee, and we thought a constitutional convention is part of the democratic method. And we didn't know that being for a constitutional convention has made us "overzealous."

Here is a blog by Ramsin Canon that really captures what is the basic difference between those supporting and opposing a constitutional convention. It's conclusion goes something like this: American political philosophy, rooted in Jefferson and Paine, says that not knowing the future is an opportunity to take action and remake it; that drastic change from below is often preferable to measured change from on top.

For the full article, go to: http://gapersblock.com/airbags/archives/pro_con_on_a_concon/

It is a little sad for me to see the liberal lions of my youth, like Abner Mikva in the Tribune and Dick Simpson in the Sun-Times and Dawn Clark Netsch, lead the orchestrated charge against a new constitutional convention.

There is an article on page 3 of the Metro section of today’s Chicago Tribune titled “Cook voters to get say on recall amendment.” It is important to note that this is only an advisory referendum. However, there is also a binding referendum on the same ballot calling for a new constitutional convention, where recall (and other important changes to how state government is run) can be proposed, debated, and then put before the voters.

You will be told that the changes you want to see in Springfield can be better (and more easily) made in other ways. Not true. A constitutional convention is the best and quickest way to make these three changes:

It’s kind of like being Alice in Wonderland to read the statements of the officiously self-proclaimed Alliance to Protect the Illinois Constitution. You have to buy five whoppers before you can even engage them in conversation.

Whopper #1: A new constitutional convention will prevent change in Springfield.

An article by Greg Hinz in the July 3 edition of Crains Chicago Business details how the opponents to the constitutional convention have hired David Axelrod's firm to develop their $2-3 million advertising campaign to defeat the referendum on the November 4 ballot. You can read the entire article at:

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=30073