State Proposal 10-1

[bailey]

MCP-001:
You're obviously quite happy with the way things are going for Michigan. I'm not sure what I can do or so to change your mind.

Enjoy the prosperity.

I completely agree the constitution a mess, but I'm voting against rewriting it because you seem to operating under the assumtion that what we'll get will be better. Surveying the political class of also-rans and political gadflies likely to be on the Con Committee, I am convinced what we will get will be disaster.

[DetroitPlanner]

DetroitPlanner:
Thank you for recognition above. I'll see you at the polls on Tuesday, my friend.

I doubt it, I vote out of Ford Memorial Church and I am there at 7 am!

Bailey, Any constitutional committee will need to be open to the public for review. With both the Dems and Tea Partiers calling for smaller more functional government [[granted with different emphases), committee members will have to get it right or never be elected again.

[EastsideAl]

I completely agree the constitution a mess, but I'm voting against rewriting it because you seem to operating under the assumtion that what we'll get will be better. Surveying the political class of also-rans and political gadflies likely to be on the Con Committee, I am convinced what we will get will be disaster.

Exactly. And I love how all the posters here who are in favor of it think their little pet complaint will be addressed in the way they want.

For instance, we're highly unlikely to get a unicameral legislature out of the process. I doubt that the politicians voted into the Convention will want to limit their prospects by throwing a lot of politicians out of work, or that either party would support that.

Term limits were voted in in a referendum by a wide majority, and although I personally oppose them, given the anti-incumbent fervor out there I'm pretty sure they would pass easily again. So they're not going away.

Anyone who thinks that a Constitutional convention is going to get us more mass transit funding at the cost of less road construction funding is truly dreaming. Especially given the power that outstate interests are going to have in any statewide convention, and the power of the lobbyists in favor of road construction projects. I think it's much more likely that Detroit and the Detroit area will be more severely limited in what they can do along those lines than that mass transit funding will be enhanced.

It's important to keep in mind that any Constitutional convention is going to be a political process, and will be a magnet to any number of powerful special interests. Given the enormous amount of money being funneled into the purportedly 'grass roots' Tea Party movement from the other side of the state, and the likely composition of any statewide convention, I can't see how it would be a good thing for this part of the state, and especially for the City of Detroit. It will also become a battle ground for the most motivated political groups, by which I mean the born-again evangelical and Monaghan-ite Catholic religious zealots, to try to enshrine in our basic law all of the things they've been screaming about for decades, and I certainly don't want that result.

[bailey]

I doubt it, I vote out of Ford Memorial Church and I am there at 7 am!

Bailey, Any constitutional committee will need to be open to the public for review. With both the Dems and Tea Partiers calling for smaller more functional government [[granted with different emphases), committee members will have to get it right or never be elected again.

yeah accountability is a real strong suit in politics around here.

[Brainiac]

Like a lot of things we see out of politicians today, the "reasons" for yes on prop 1 exclude real intentions. There is a momement in this nation to undermine the power of state governments.

[Fnemecek]

I completely agree the constitution a mess, but I'm voting against rewriting it because you seem to operating under the assumtion that what we'll get will be better. Surveying the political class of also-rans and political gadflies likely to be on the Con Committee, I am convinced what we will get will be disaster.

You raise a valid point. There is always a chance that we'll have to vote a new constitution down in 2 years.

However, the alternative is to vote no on proposal 1 and continue living under a broken government for years to come. Michigan essentially has a gamble with either option. We can call a convention and risk that it won't be an improvement or live with
failure.

With that in mind, I feel that can't afford not to take a chance on the convention.

[Brainiac]

Given the enormous amount of money being funneled into the purportedly 'grass roots' Tea Party movement from the other side of the state, and the likely composition of any statewide convention, I can't see how it would be a good thing for this part of the state, and especially for the City of Detroit.

Al - you and I agree that yes on prop 1 is risky. But dude - Tea Partiers are *broke* - they can barely scrape together a few hundered dollars for venues. I've seen the inside operation, you clearly have not.

You might disagree with limited government - fewer government programs, less government spending, less taxes - fine. But I nearly laughed out loud when you implied they have an enormous amount of money and are sophisticated.

Tea Party people are political amatures who feel threatened by the federal government. They're a bunch of cynics and rarely even agree with each other. It's the big government/progressive leadership that fosters the movement.

[Bearinabox]

There is a momement in this nation to undermine the power of state governments.

God, I wish.

[dtowncitylover]

There is a momement [[sic) in this nation to undermine the power of state governments.

Where? How can I join?

[thomprod]

I've always been against mandatory term limits. The electorate always has the right to limit a term of office by choosing a replacement at the next election. Forcing term limits takes power away from the people, who cannot now allow a good representative to remain in office for another term.

[mwilbert]

Michigan's constitution has its flaws, but the idea that it would be likely to improve significantly if it were rewritten at the current time by the likely cast of characters strikes me as wildly optimistic.

In any case, Proposition 1 isn't going to pass. It has no natural constituency, while there are lots of stakeholders in the current system, and in any case people are not really in an experimental mood at the moment.

[Brainiac]

Where? How can I join?

Maybe you should hang out in Ann Arbor. You missed out on the $1 per signature fraud campaign for the fake tea party. I'm sure there will be another soon. If you know anything about identify theft, you'd be a great asset.

[dtowncitylover]

Maybe you should hang out in Ann Arbor. You missed out on the $1 per signature fraud campaign for the fake tea party. I'm sure there will be another soon. If you know anything about identify theft, you'd be a great asset.

Darn Brainiac I don't know anything about identity theft.

And Braniac, I don't care much for states' rights. We are a Union, not a confederation. Things like education, health care, transportation, heck even slavery back then should be legislated nationally not by states. The 10th Amendment can kiss my you-know-what.

I am an American by citizenship, not a Michigander.

[EastSider]

dtown, you do realize that the 10th amendment you claim to hate so much was used by abolitionists to fight slavery, don't you?

[dtowncitylover]

dtown, you do realize that the 10th amendment you claim to hate so much was used by abolitionists to fight slavery, don't you?

The Tenth Amendment establishes the basis for all states' rights arguments. Slavery, in the mindset of the South, was a states' rights issue. It's the Southerners, even in civil rights movement, who made the case louder for states' rights and for the 10th Amendment.

Are you referring to Dred Scott?

And claim has a shred of doubt in it, I DO hate the 10th Amendment.

[EastSider]

The Tenth Amendment establishes the basis for all states' rights arguments. Slavery, in the mindset of the South, was a states' rights issue. It's the Southerners, even in civil rights movement, who made the case louder for states' rights and for the 10th Amendment.

Are you referring to Dred Scott?

And claim has a shred of doubt in it, I DO hate the 10th Amendment.

Start by looking up the Compromise of 1850 and the efforts of northern states to stop enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of that same year in their respective states.

I'm hopeful that some vestige, some spark of intellectual curiosity may kindle within you a desire to read further.

[dtowncitylover]

Start by looking up the Compromise of 1850 and the efforts of northern states to stop enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act of that same year in their respective states.

I'm hopeful that some vestige, some spark of intellectual curiosity may kindle within you a desire to read further.

I know what you are talking about, but I am not going to change my mind about the 10th Amendment based on that. That was a different America [[that's what I don't get about some people's thinking, we don't live in the same America our Founder Fathers lived in).

But yes the Northern argument that "we are free states and therefore Mr. Federal Government cannot tell us that we have to 'give back' the slaves the ran away to here".

Don't worry, if you really knew me you'd know I have the fire of intellectual curiosity.