Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

    I really don't know why they oppose it.

    I do know that a Con-Con can help with reforming the BOE, addressing some parts of the Native Hawaiian issues, establishing term limits, and several other things. Also, it's been over 50 years, and times have certainly changed.

    So what are the reasons against it, and why are they supported primarily by Dems?
    FutureNewsNetwork.com
    Energy answers are already here.

  • #2
    Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

    The main (given) reason against it is the very high cost. But a ConCon is a way for the Constitution and its laws to be evaluated and amended outside the legislative process. When your party controls the legislative process, of course you are going to be hesitant to give other people the power to do what you've managed to avoid or oppose. It's also why a ConCon is probably necessary, although I'm not convinced it needs to happen immediately; perhaps, like other expensive projects, it should be planned and budgeted for across three years or so, so that nobody has to go into debt in order to have this important discussion.
    But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
    GrouchyTeacher.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

      When your party controls the legislative process, of course you are going to be hesitant to give other people the power to do what you've managed to avoid or oppose.

      Yeah right. Like Democrats will ever lose control in Hawaii. As long as you require people to depend upon you as the source of your power, and as long as there are plenty of people who want to be dependent upon others instead of being judged on their own merit, then you can be certain that Democrats will rule the roost.


      Hawaii is like the petri dish of this kind of behavior.
      FutureNewsNetwork.com
      Energy answers are already here.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

        In case you're interested, the Legislature tasked the Legislative Reference Bureau with doing a study on the costs of the ConCon. The costs estimated in the study are significantly higher than the costs previously considered.

        http://hawaii.gov/lrb/rpts08/costcon.pdf

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

          Originally posted by timkona View Post
          it's been over 50 years, and times have certainly changed.
          Sorry to point out the obvious, but you are wrong. The last ConCon was held in 1978, which by my calculation, is 30 years.

          We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

          — U.S. President Bill Clinton
          USA TODAY, page 2A
          11 March 1993

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

            Excellent TuNnL. I want to read more about what happened in '78 and how it went. Does everybody here support a Con-Con? Or not.
            FutureNewsNetwork.com
            Energy answers are already here.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

              Originally posted by TuNnL View Post
              Sorry to point out the obvious, but you are wrong. The last ConCon was held in 1978, which by my calculation, is 30 years.
              Did we revised it then? Should we revise it now? Or is the 30-year-old legal document is as good as the US Constitution (minus the last 17 amendments)?
              Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

              Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

                If the US Constitution has never required a Con-Con, being revised through ammendments - why is the Hawaii Constitution considered more important? We have a legislature that can make revisions, to be voted on by the general voting population & at far less cost to the taxpayers.

                (and yes, I oppose Con-Con and I am a proud Democrat)
                "Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be."
                – Sydney J. Harris

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

                  Originally posted by TuNnL View Post
                  Sorry to point out the obvious, but you are wrong. The last ConCon was held in 1978, which by my calculation, is 30 years.
                  One score and ten years ago...
                  This is XXX.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

                    Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
                    If the US Constitution has never required a Con-Con, being revised through ammendments - why is the Hawaii Constitution considered more important? We have a legislature that can make revisions, to be voted on by the general voting population & at far less cost to the taxpayers.
                    Every several years, my church reviews its charter in order to decide if (a) we've been true to the mission we set ourselves when the church was established and (b) because of shifting needs, social climates, or whatever, the stated mission should be amended so that it better reflects the current work. My church is quite small: we have about two hundred on Sunday mornings. The fact that we review the charter more often than the state reviews its constitution doesn't mean the charter is more important. It means simply that a smaller organization with a smaller document can (and should) take a moment every so often for formal, organized review.

                    The legislative process is ONE process by which the constitution can be reviewed: One which is mostly controlled by elected officials. Yes, there are other means, such as by voter initiative, but voter initiatives and legislative amendments tend to focus on the document in small pieces, where it relates to whatever the current concerns are. I don't have much of a problem with the system, but I do think that organizations that only make changes where immediate concerns are addressed develop, over time, antiquated documents that are meaningless. If you've ever looked at an employee handbook that's not thoroughly reviewed by employers sometimes, you'll see all kinds of so-called policies that are still official policies but are practically meaningless. My own school's orientation binder lists three dentists in our neighborhood who have agreed to treat our students in case of some kind of dental emergency. I looked them up this year and found that two no longer practice dentistry and one was relocated when his office was demolished to make way for a new shopping center. Three years ago.

                    I'm guessing we don't to a national ConCon for reasons of practicality. The question is whether or not the state of Hawaii is too large to conduct a formal review of its foundational document. I think it's not, and I think even if it costs a lot of money and even if, after the formal review, not ONE THING has been changed, it is necessary for its preservation as a document of the people, and not just of elected officials and special interest groups.
                    But I'm disturbed! I'm depressed! I'm inadequate! I GOT IT ALL! (George Costanza)
                    GrouchyTeacher.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

                      Originally posted by anapuni808 View Post
                      If the US Constitution has never required a Con-Con,...
                      Maybe we should, regardless of the amendments.
                      Beijing 8-08-08 to 8-24-08

                      Tiananmen Square 4-15-89 to 6-04-89

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

                        Originally posted by scrivener View Post
                        I'm guessing we don't to a national ConCon for reasons of practicality. The question is whether or not the state of Hawaii is too large to conduct a formal review of its foundational document. I think it's not, and I think even if it costs a lot of money and even if, after the formal review, not ONE THING has been changed, it is necessary for its preservation as a document of the people, and not just of elected officials and special interest groups.
                        In each decade that has passed since the last ConCon in 1978, it seems like every reason in the book has been used to justify postponing it. In 1988, the excuse was that many of the 1978 ConCon proposals had not been enacted yet, so this backlog should be taken care of first. Then in 1998, civil rights activists were opposed to a ConCon to thwart any attempt by delegates to enact an amendment that would ban same sex marriage. And in 2008, no ConCon because of $$$$ issues?

                        This is getting absurd.
                        This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

                          The fact that the last convention created OHA is enough to realize the destructive power possible and shun another repetition.
                          May I always be found beneath your contempt.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

                            If you have complete control of the legislative process, why shake the boat and do things that could affect the status-quo?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Why are Dems against the Con-Con?

                              Originally posted by salmoned View Post
                              The fact that the last convention created OHA is enough to realize the destructive power possible and shun another repetition.
                              It’s not often I agree with salmoned on anything, so I’m taking advantage of this rare opportunity. While I don’t agree that the Office of Hawaiian Affairs represents a “destructive power,” the fact of the matter is, OHA should have always been a temporary agency within our state government that is eventually dissolved to make way for a sovereign Hawaiian nation.

                              Many kanaka maoli on this island are simply too blind to see that the Akaka Bill is their chance to finally right the wrongs committed to their people more than 100 years ago. Hawaiians have to let go of this idea that the state bears the burden of taking care of them forever. They need to walk their own path, as other native American tribes have, and if it means becoming a nation within a nation, so be it.

                              If anyone had bothered to read Adri’s link, you will see that the cost of a Constitutional Convention is hardly worth the price we have to pay for such an extravagant exercise. Remember, this is a state government estimate, and like the anti-railers enjoy pointing out, such estimates are usually overly conservative. I strongly disagree with scrivener who thinks pomp and circumstance over this “exercise in democracy” is beneficial in any way to the average Hawai‘i resident. Our economy, like most states in the union, is hurting in a very real way. High-tech tax credits that benefit local television shows like “Lost” are about to vanish and our own Department of Education is taking huge hits in its budget that include the elimination of new science books for our bright young keiki in the classrooms.

                              Why are we whittling away $45 million for a bunch of “elected” insiders to tinker with our sacred documents? What is it that so urgently needs to be changed that it cannot wait for our state representatives and senators to address through acts and bills that the general public has access and input to during the legislative session we’re already paying for?

                              We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.

                              — U.S. President Bill Clinton
                              USA TODAY, page 2A
                              11 March 1993

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X