CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Captain Flume — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:37:25 -0000

===== We will all have a chance on Nov. 4 to elect our representatives. ==

Not exactly, with 59 out of 118 state reps running unopposed. ====

And 2/3s of our senators are not running at all.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Cheswick — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:13:22 -0000

== We will all have a chance on Nov. 4 to elect our representatives. ==

Not exactly, with 59 out of 118 state reps running unopposed.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Bruno_Behrend — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:35:23 -0000

NMHTI,

Thanks for the compliment.

Unlike Kass, who complains about the so-called "combine," but won't offer any ideas to combat or replace it, I haven't given up yet.

I see a "yes" vote as an opportunity, not a guarantee. Some people make a living "cursing the darkness," and Kass is better at that than most. (very similar to my conservative curmudgeon friends who think I'm crazy)

I'm jist sayin "let's light this candle!"

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Rich Miller — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:11:09 -0000

One other thing...

You know I can see your IP address, right? lol

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Rich Miller — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:10:13 -0000

In other words, some of us aren't ready to just lay down and die.

Give up if you want. Your perogative. You must be a Cub fan. lol

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Rich Miller — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:09:19 -0000

===would influence this convention just like they influence everything in this state===

So? The machine influenced the last con-con, too. The resulting document wasn't bad at all for the times, but times have changed.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

No more hidden tax increases — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:06:55 -0000

your thinking is very noble and one that I wish we all shared. Unfortunately, this state threw out the 9th grade civics model of government back before the Cubs won their last world series. Unfortunately, the powers that be, In Kass' words, the combine - would influence this convention just like they influence everything in this state. If we get a convention -- hold onto your wallets -- all levels of government in Illinois need revenue.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Bruno_Behrend — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:27:12 -0000

NMHTI,

An accurate point re: home rule, but totally non-persuasive re: the 2008 convention vote.

I'm reminded of the many enjoyable debates against Dan Proft on this issue. Let's see...

a) the 1970 convention got us a bad constitution, therefore,
b) another convention is a bad idea.

WTF!? Who the hell thinks that way?!

Let's see, GWB is a bad president, therefore elections are too risky, let's keep him in office until "better leadership" comes along.

It's absurd logic on both counts.

The 1970 Convention was scripted in advance by all the powers that be. (Ogilvie, RJDaley, et al.) A 2008 convention is unlikely to be scripted in the same fashion. (not that our book wouldn't be a great script, IMO) Hence the special interests' fear of a convention. Anything they can't script HAS to be "too risky."

I'm 100% with you re: "Home Rule," which is NOT "local control" by citizens, but control by difficult-to-defeat local pols.

If you want to repeal/reform Home Rule along citizen driven lines? A convention is the only way you'll ever get there.

Every citizen in the state should ask themselves what top 3 things they would do to improve Illinois. Ask yourself whether a convention is more or less likely than the current process to get those improvements. The answer points to "Yes" every time.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

No more hidden tax increases — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:03:00 -0000

Bruno--
The biggest tax increase ever was voted in by the "informed" electorate after the 1970 constitution. Home Rule -- or "self government" as the conservatives liked to call it then has resulted in Cook County and Chicago having the highest sales tax in the nation. Its never been called a called a tax increase. Fear mongering -- you bet -- but fool me once ...

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Bruno_Behrend — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:14:50 -0000

Conned,

Please define "extremely conservative agenda."

Just in case some one doesn't know, I tell everyone in the beginning of all of my presentations and debates that I'm a talk show host, and generally perceived as pretty conservative.

For my part, keeping a pension guarantee clause in the Constitution, but also mandating the funding of benefits is hardly an "extreme" position. (and BTW, Secret Sq., I think you are naive. They knew EXACTLY what they were doing in 1970) Neither is fixing the balanced budget clause so that it actually mandates a balanced budget.

Who ever we "recruit" still has to get elected, and last time I checked, that is done by the people of each district.

Next, what ever changes are made to the Constitution have to be ratified by the voters, and I doubt any "extreme" right-wing issues would get passed any Illinois electorate.

My guess is that you've read the same tea leaves we all have here in IL. There aren't enough tax dollars (or future tax dollars) in the state to pay for the army of bureaucratic dross, their end-of-career largess, and EROs that force every one in IL to pay for their living off the tax payers for the last 20-30 years of their lives.

The biggest fear of the "no" coalition is that the gravy train will end. The fact is that has to end in any case.

118 delegates in a convention will fix things faster, and in a better fashion, than the current process and/or people.

Vote "Yes". Bad ideas won't get passed ratification.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Captain America — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:52:30 -0000

At the risk of redundancy I repeat a past post: We should all be "mad as heck and refuse to take it anymore."

Send a message to the political plutocrats, and their friends and families feeding at the public trough, that politics and government as usual are no longer acceptable.

Illinois is ready for reform even if the politicians, unions, and other established interests are not.

We can do better!Vote yes for Con-Con! Let the chips fall where they may.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Secret Square — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:38:11 -0000

It seems to me that a lot of the provisions of the 1970 Constitution were written on the assumption that reasonably sane and competent people would interpret and exercise those powers, and that they would not have to be "childproofed". That assumption has proven to be false.
It isn't just the governor who is at fault here. For example, has anyone noticed that the current constitution mandates that pensions be paid but DOESN'T mandate that they be funded? Apparently the people who wrote that clause assumed the GA and governor could be trusted to take care of that -- but they haven't. All three branches of government are to blame here because the Ill. Supreme Court ruled way back in the 70s that it was OK for the state to skip pension fund payments as long as it didn't endanger anyone's CURRENT benefits. There are other examples as well. We now know how badly these powers can be abused, and therefore need to take measures to prevent their abuse in the future.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Phil Collins — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:35:07 -0000

I agree that, if voters want change, they should vote for progressive candidates. Almost all candidates are progressive, but they have different opinions of progress.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Secret Square — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:28:38 -0000

Does anyone really think the GA is going to pass an amendment limiting the gov's powers in any way, given what's happened in the districts of the legislators who voted for the recall amendment -- e.g. IDOT Traffic Safety and Pontiac Prison? Not as long as this governor is in office, at least.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Captain Flume — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:13:06 -0000

Also worth noting is that an amendment proposal to limit the amendatory veto powers of the Governor failed in 1974. Maybe not today though?

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

BandCamp — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:04:10 -0000

=== If you want change vote for progressive candidates. ===

Vote for whomever you want. Without some change in the Constitution, the newly elected legislators will still be led by the old guard.

Bill, quit yelling at the kids running through your front yard.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Captain Flume — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:03:14 -0000

Anyway, the way I read it, if special sessions and amendatory vetoes are an issue, the GA can propose amendments that would qulaify those gubernatorial powers. And surely in Illinois, ther must be some lawyers who can write an initiative amendment that would pass court muster to address the manner in which the GA conducts business.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Captain Flume — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:57:02 -0000

Regarding amdendments since 1990: According to the 1970 Illinois Constitution Annotated for Legislators (4th Edition, updated 2005):
" . . .The General Assembly has sent fifteen proposed amendments of the 1970 Constitution
to the voters. They are summarized below [1990-present, adopted only here--CF].
Adopted amendments . . .

1990: Amended Article 9, section 8 again, to subdivide the kinds of real property
having a shorter period for redemption from taxes into two groupsâ€”one with a redemption
period of 6 months, and the other with a redemption period of one year.
1992: Added to Article 1 a new section 8.1 on rights of crime victims.
1994: Two amendments were proposed and adopted.
(1) Amended Article 1, section 8 to remove the requirement of face-to-face confrontation
in criminal trials between witnesses and defendants.
(2) Amended Article 4, section 10 to change the intended legislative adjournment date
from June 30 to May 31.
1998: Amended Article 6, section 15 to strengthen the process for discipline of judges
charged with misconduct."

Amendment initiatives can be made only for Article IV, but must be, according to a Supreme Court ruling be for both "structural and procedural subjects" (Article 14, Section 3 annotation).

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Rich Miller — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:54:00 -0000

===I donâ€™t think anyone would be surprised that a reporter would want a chance to cover a very controversial event with statewide implications.===

If you're insinuating that's the reason those reporters and myself are writing this stuff about the con-con, I have two words for you...

1) Bite
2) Me

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

conned — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:51:45 -0000

I don't think anyone would be surprised that a reporter would want a chance to cover a very controversial event with statewide implications. That's what reporters live for and Rich loves controversy more than anoyone. Reporters have a close up view of problems in Springfield that we all know exist. The question is will a con con fix these problems.

I also enjoy watching Bruno try and con everyone here. This guy admittedly has recruited over 50 delegates and has an extrememly conservative agenda outlined in his book. He hopes that everyone will not look behind the curtain and only focus on his recall message. He is a prime example of the dangers of con con and the zero accountability of delegates.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Speaking At Will — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 11:25:19 -0000

== Whatâ€™s your point? That the constitution works well for Illinois citizens and there was no demand for change and no outpouring of support for ammendments after 1990? ==

LOL! Man.....I'm speechless....

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Bill — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:51:47 -0000

Sorry for my constant mispelling of amendment.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

VanillaMan — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:50:07 -0000

A new constitution is worth whatever amount the anti-self government opponents claim it will cost.

Bill?
John Wintrop ghost contacted us and he wants you to return his powdered wig.

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Bill — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:46:28 -0000

Well, Rich, I'd have to check but, since you asked, my guess is none. What's your point? That the constitution works well for Illinois citizens and there was no demand for change and no outpouring of support for ammendments after 1990?

Re: Tribune urges “Yes” vote on con-con; Erickson lays out what’s at stake

Six Degrees of Separation — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:44:19 -0000

Why is the con-con estimated to cost $80 million? If the voters chose yes, and delegates served in the public interest with no compensation (maybe a small per diem for their trouble), attorneys agreed to serve pro-bono to research some of the ramifications of the changes (a much more worthy cause than some recent high-profile pro bono work:-) and the ratification was tied in with another statewide general election, I think the whole ball of wax could be done for about 10% of the advertised cost.