Nathan Benefield posted on 3/8/2010 1:41:00 PM
The left fears a marriage amendment, tort reform (i.e. medical malpractice caps, which would require constitutional change), spending limits, term limits, and potential provisions that would ban teacher strikes, allow greater school choice, and a number of other things.

Joe Collins posted on 3/8/2010 1:32:00 PM
"It is my perception that the public wants "change", just not that much of it."

I believe your perception may be correct, at least in my case. I wouldn't care if we reduced the House by 50 or so seats, but a radically smaller House is not necessarily desirable from where I sit. I&R and term limits (while there may be better implementations than found in Cali.) have actually passed in other states, and thus empirically stand a very real possibility of passing here. So if one opposes these ideas, or at least thinks they stand a chance of being done poorly, it would not be irrational to be resistant a Con-Con. This is not to say I'm immovably opposed to a Con-Con, but that it just isn't obvious to me that it's a Good Thing, or without danger.

Other than perhaps something prohibiting same-sex marriage (which, empirically, has a chance of happening), I'm having a hard time imagining what the political Left would fear from radical change to the Constitution.

Nathan Benefield posted on 3/8/2010 11:44:00 AM
Interestingly, I have seen many on the left who fear a ConCon or I&R for the same/opposite reasons (i.e. radical change they won't like). It is my perception that the public wants "change", just not that much of it.

As for term limits, we would contend that lobbyists have greater influence by building long term relationships with lawmakers, and helping their re-election efforts.

joe schmoe posted on 3/8/2010 11:24:00 AM
I&R is a silly, progressive-era concept that basically argues that the general public is smart enough to make good law because they're not smart enough to vote out lawmakers who aren't making good law in the first place.

Joe Collins posted on 3/8/2010 10:40:00 AM
Nate, as per our twitter exchange yesterday, I thought my acknowledgment of the Art-I exemption in the Folmer bill implied that I had been duly corrected on the gun rights issue.

And while there are clearly merits to the Con-Con argument, I think too many are taking it too lightly. The whole "it's been a long time since we did this" doesn't wash with me, and I am more moved by the substantive arguments frequently made by the likes of the CF. So, I'm commending the CF's style, but your allies in this frighten me.

As to I&R, and the increased likelihood of term limits, I would make the case that term limits are not without their drawbacks, and have the tendency to concentrate power in the hands of those who set up camp in state capitals and can outlast legislators... the lobbyists.

Post Your Comment Here

Name *
E-mail *
Response *
Enter the characters as they appear in the box to the right *
	Want to make commenting easier?  Get a MyCommonwealthFoundation account here
	* = Required
	Please notify when other comments are posted in this thread