If Michigan citizens want to get serious about transforming the way our state works, from how we spend the public purse to how we elect leaders, to the size and role of government, then it’s time to rip up the Michigan constitution for the first time in a half-century and start over, argues former state schools superintendent Tom Watkins…
Typically, opponents argue that opening the Constitution would invite unwelcome, extremist proposals. It could help cement into the Constitution every pet peeve of the moment, from legalizing marijuana to allowing public funding for private and parochial schools to permitting capital punishment.
Clearly, there are risks when you open government for review by the people. Yet, as our fellow citizens have proved at least three times in the past, we do have the ability to change and update our ability to govern ourselves. Constitutional convention members have tended to abide by the notion that a constitution is best when it lays out the framework of self-governance without locking specific policies into a document. Those are best left for legislative debate.
The special interests, vested in the status quo, will try to scare the voters into preserving the current system. But as conditions continue to deteriorate in Michigan and long-term problems keep getting ignored, residents must keep asking: Is the current system of government in Michigan meeting my needs?
Like a 1963 car, the Michigan Constitution needs a tune-up.
When you go to the ballot box in November 2010, you face choice of whether to open up the constitution to a statewide convention of locally elected delegates. How will you vote?
14 Comments
Perhaps Tom and like minded folks should read our present constitution before advocating a new one!
Can you imagine redoing our State constitution when the 60’s kids are running our State,just look at what their doing to the Federal Goverment…..no way!!!
My fear is that a con-con could lead to a hard right, special interest-laden constitution that would send absolutely the wrong message to the businesses and talent we’re trying to protect. Note the exclusionary tone of recent amendments and the budget mess partially created by constitutionally mandated spending.
Hey everybody, changing a state constitution is a piece of cake. Here’s the link:
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Constitution.pdf
Note that it is only 83 pages. Now let’s everyone start marking it up.
I’ve been writing national consensus documents in the electrical power industry for about 12 years and its not that hard. For example, applying my own thoughts, I’d take the existing Section 50:
(Existing Text) § 50 Atomic and new forms of energy.
Sec. 50. The legislature may provide safety measures and regulate the use of atomic energy and forms of energy developed in the future, having in view the general welfare of the people of this state. History: Const. 1963, Art. IV, §50, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964.
And change it to:
(Proposed New) § XX Energy security.
Sec. XX. The Governor may provide incentives for energy security having in view the general welfare of the people of this state.
Substantiation:
“Energy security” is a general concept involving price, availability – market characteristics that embraces all forms of energy; electricity among them. I would put this in the Governor’s Office for the next 20 years and would keep it simple and general. The success or failure of Executive handling will be obvious enough; with checks and balances coming through the special interests influencing the legislators. Energy initiatives will have to be more entrepreneurial and, as such, executive handling will get us there faster and will allow the Governor to respond quickly to signals that will help Michigan compete with other states and countries. In the Executive Branch, there may be a higher tolerance of the waste that inevitably goes into the development of a competitive industry. One way of restating Thomas Edison’s “99% perspiration-1% inspiration” quotation is to say creativity is not efficient. I don’t think deliberative bodies like legislatures are tooled up for innovation. I’d like to preserve and governor’s ability to shoot first and ask questions later. On other issues, I’d like to preserve the legislators ability to ask questions first before shooting. With more education on state energy issues, however, my mind could be changed on this.
But — this post is more about walking you through the steps of marking up a big scary document rather than the specifics of state energy policy. In a separate, following post, I’ll provide some links to other states that have tried and failed and are in the middle of the process of state constitutional conventions. In 2008, for example, Illinois tried to change its constitution. Alabama is in the middle of the process now. As you will see, only the strike and bold aspect of changing a state constitution is a piece of cake. In every state where a CON-CON has been tried, the fur flies at every step of the process.
See related post. Hope this helps. // Mike
I disagree with Susan, I think a new constitution would cement in the hard left and permanent recession.
Hello again, folks. “Status Quo” is Latin for the mess we’re in. I can see (from the postings on the Con-Con subject) that the mess just isn’t bad enough in Michigan such that partisans on both sides of the proposal would easily agree to a Constitutional Convention – at least among this site’s visitors.
Nevertheless, in an earlier posting, I promised some links to information about other states re-writing their constitutions. Here’s one from the League of Women Voters in Illinois:
http://www.lwvil.org/ConCon_UnionLeague.pdf
And another from Alabama:
http://www.al.com/news/press-register/metro.ssf?/base/news/1234865754130470.xml&coll=3
(Careful of the wraparound/truncated text in the second link.) Or just search on “State Constitutional Conventions” for other stories.
In any civilized culture, there is no writing – only re-writing. Just a thought.
“Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second. …” James Madison, letter written in 1788
Rachel,
Hello and thanks for your thoughts. Do I understand your comment correctly as a rhetorical statement in support of a Michigan Con-Con? Because you quoted Madison in 1788, and the period to approve the re-written Constitution went on from 1787-1790, it is hard for me to judge what Madison was thinking at the time. I have assumed that since he was the main drafter of it, he was its champion – despite the gnashing of teeth around him. If I’m wrong, please advise. Thanks!
I will work hard to stop con-con from taking place. The left-wing groups will try to take our guns away. The left-wing groups would try to control and hijack the con-con. If the people of Michigan wants a con-con, I will run for con-con delegate. I will fight to protect our freedoms we still have.
Is there a better option than a State Constitutional Convention to discuss the many issues (education, taxation, restructuring state government, etc.) that our highly partisan Legislture seems incapable of dealing with? If Proposal One passes in November, 2010, 148 convention delegates will be elected from throughout Michigan. If you are worried that the “left-wing” or the “hard right” ( both above) will dominate the Convention, then run as a delegate or support someone whose views you agree with. Maybe the majority of the delegates will not approve any amndments to present to voters. Maybe a majority of the voters will not approve any amendments presented to them from the Convention. But given our current conditions in Michigan, why would we not want to take advantage of the FORUM presented by a State Constitutional Convention? Before you decide on Proposal One, at least visit: http://www.EnergizeMichigan.com.
My fear is that a con-con could lead to a hard left, special interest-laden constitution that would send absolutely the wrong message to all of Michigan’s citizens – past, present and future. Look at the money we’re wasting on “green” this and “green” than, instead of supporting businesses that actually have the ability to put people to work.
The Michigan constitution is a mess. The most important issue discussed at the 1962 convention was the makeup of the State Senate, and they got it wrong. It was overruled by the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court one-man,one-vote decision. Yet the language remains as deadwood. Much of the language on apportionment is unconstitutional deadwood. The most urgent reason for a con-con is to end the gridlock that occurs when control of the legislature is split. A unicameral legislature would solve gridlock and save $30 million a year. A modified bicameral legislature would at least address the budget gridlock.
Good to see the level of debate on a CON-CON rising again. Its been six months and since my last post. I’ve gathered the impression that neither Republicans nor Democrats want to see any such thing so a CON-CON is only talked about in whispers, if at all. I did a little reading on what Madison had to say about the last federal Constitutional Convention and came away with the belief that Rachel’s contribution to the debate may not be enough of a “fit” to be a counterargument.
It was gratifying to see Ron Dzwonkowski writing about the prospect in the Sunday Detroit News last weekend.
I’ve got a few more blue-sky ideas that I hope will get thrown into the mix:
1. A unicameral legislature. Instead of limiting the time in session, do away with the two-body legislature and replace with a single legislative body. Keep the executive and judicial branches intact, however. Saves time; saves money.
2. A requirement for the Governor to answer cold-call questions from the legislature once week — like the British do in their parliamentary system. That would cull the governor candidates a bit with only those who are quick thinking on their feet and have their answers. I love watching the way the British grill their leaders this way and admired the way Tony Blair handled himself. You can see this process yourself on C-SPAN once a week.
3. Secure the City of Detroit, put it through Chapter 11, and break it up into four different cities. Call it a special economic development zone for the next 16 years. The core Civic Center area would be able to retain the name Detroit, but three other cities could be established that would be allowed to govern themselves. The water, sewer, and other infrastructure, etc., would be allowed to develop according to their needs.
4. Let the Big Three Universities go private; consolidate the others and maybe help them develop closer ties to Canada.
Hope this helps.
The vast majority of MI residents have no idea that we will have a vote Nov, 2010 on IF they want to re-write the Michigan Constitution. It seems that the people that have control know, and they are making battle plans to defeat it. The question becomes why do they want to defeat it? Because they want to stay in control. As a result, we will see Big Bucks being spent trying to maintain the status quo. Is the voting public upset enough with how things are being done now to overcome these efforts? We will have our answer November 4.
In the mean time, the word needs to get out. What are the pros and the cons of having a con-con. It is not a liberal vs conservative issue at this point, that will depend on who is voted into the delegation IF the voters want a con-con.
The only con I have heard about having a con-con so far is the cost. Can we afford to continue with the way things are now? Is it just a cost issue? Can we afford continuing on the way we do now?