Lt. Gov. James 'Duke' Aiona on Constitutional Conventions

Comment

Comment by Peter Kay on September 26, 2008 at 10:41am

That's a fair position and I think is the key that differentiates a healthy pro/con position. The "No" side thinks that things are coming along nicely, while the "Yes" side believes its time for citizen-driven overhaul.

Comment by Chuck Painter on September 26, 2008 at 10:33am

I understand the concept... even appreciate the argument. That said, government is not like a 30 year-old car. I think government evolves in a fairly holistic way. The pendulum swings slowly, but it certainly swings.

The last US Constitutional Convention was in 1787 and yet the document has swung back and forth based on the will of the people. Some of those amendments, like the 18th, had unintended consequences that set our system of government back on its heels.

I think it's my feeling that calling our entire State system of government into question may be a little too revolutionary for my tastes, particularly at a time when we are so dramatically short on resources and so polarized in our opinions.

Comment by Peter Kay on September 26, 2008 at 10:19am

Yes, BUT, the amendment process works via the legislature. A ConCon can examine the entire government holistically.

Analogy: You've got a 30 yr old car. It runs good, for a 30 yr old car. But it doesn't use unleaded fuel, has roll-up windows, handles like a 30yr old car (awful), and has fuel economy of a 30 yr old car (terrible).

Ammendments are like taking the 30yr old car for a tune up or maintenance, or maybe even upgrading the tires or suspension. Problem is, it still runs like a 30yr old car.

A ConCon is getting a new, modern car. One that is fuel efficient, safer, and more tuned to what you need today instead of what you bought one for 30 year ago.

The legislature can't do that. A ConCon is not to apply patches that the leg is perfectly capable of.

A ConCon is to address the issues that the Leg is either unwilling or unable to.

Comment by Chuck Painter on September 26, 2008 at 10:10am

Duke raises an interesting question. In the last convention, out of 102 delegates, only seven were elected officials. Who were the rest?

The illusion is that anybody, the man or woman on the street, can become a part of the process. My experience with democracy is that has never been the way it works. I find it a little disconcerting that people who are actively engaged in government on a full-time basis, our elected officials, seem to have been shut out of the process.

We have a system already for changing the constitution. It's called amendment. And those amendments are voted on by the people of the State.

To me this is a process of natural, orderly evolution and preferable to calling the entire system of government into question.