• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

michigan constitution revising

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
Its the term felon that sounds so bad which is the problem, that's why the anti crowd has used it so liberally, they know this very well, and make the most out of it. We need to work as hard to change the peoples reaction to the term felon, as anything else we do to further gun rights.
 

jmlefler

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Southwest, Michigan, USA
I absolutely voted an enthusiastic YES on the ConCon.

We must replace, not reform. No legislator will willfully propose an amendment for a part-time legislature - never have, never will. You got a million bucks for a citizen initiated amendment? Good luck with that. If the 'amendment process' is so easy, why, according to the Michigan Constitution, do you have to be 21 to vote when the Federal Law says you only need to be 18 (since 1971!)? An 'easy' fix? Then why haven't we fixed it? Which legislator will put forth an amendment for a unicameral legislature? It was the apportionment between the House and Senate that was the major debate in the '61-63 ConCon. The Senate was apportioned 80/20 between population and land area (thus to provide representation to the West side of the State) and the House was 100% population. Great idea, except SCOTUS shot it down. Look to our Federal Consititution - the Senate provides representation for the States in that each State, large or small, got equal representation (that is until the 17th amendment) - the House, strictly 'the people'. What is the difference in representation in the MI House and Senate? Does the Senate represent the Counties? The Cities, Villages or Townships? No, both the House and Senate represent 'the people'. So why two Houses? Cut costs by consolidating with a unicameral, part-time legislature. The cost recovery would be a net gain over the cost of any ConCon. This is just one of a host of real changes that could be made at a ConCon that our current legislature just doesn't have the spine to confront.

This comes down to raw fear - fear of the 'bad guys' doing something to the MICon, then convincing a majority of citizens to vote for it - what might be overlooked is that we get the last say. Are the people so smart as to reject an unpleasant amendment, an amendment that institutes a policy you fear -say, repeal MI's constitutional recognition of our RKBA, yet are so stupid that they would accept some half-baked Constitution? You see, there is no difference between the final say of the people in accepting an amendment through the 'just use the amendment process folks', and the final say of the people in accepting changes to the MI Constitution. Oh yeah, the Drain Commissioner - a MICon requirement.

And, BTW, the 'bad guys' hold the same fear that those that expressed it here do - to them, we are the 'bad guys'. It's just that we're more afraid of them than they are of us. The public employee unions are scared to death that we'll push for a revocation of the Public Employee Relations Act, or make them pay for their own HC, or do something stupid like Right to Work. Which legislator will take on the public sector unions? There's too much money there. They need us to back them up with reassurances that we'll elect them regardless but there is such a disconnect between Lansing and 'the people' that they're easily swayed by the folks they see every day - the unions.

The legislators are afraid we'll take away their Senate or their full-time gig. THERE IS NOTHING in the MICon that calls for a full-time legislature - they just turned it into one when they voted themselves enough salary so they didn't have to keep a 'real' job. They work part-time now - it's just that we have to watch 24/7, 365 because they're never really out of session. The general session is 3 days/week - Tues-Thus. Then comes the 'vacations' and 'holidays'. At least with a 'part-time' legislature we'd know when we're safe from any legislation.

I'm jus' sayin'
 

jmlefler

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
287
Location
Southwest, Michigan, USA
The Michigan government has proven that they cannot be trusted with our money, the old constitution, our laws, and our rights, I am not therefore, about to trust them with a new constitution.

The people of Michigan are the one's trusted to determine whether any new constitution is worthy, not the Michigan gov't. The end of the process is a state-wide vote by the people on acceptance of any Constitution.

I don't understand your argument, it appears that you don't trust the Michigan government today, yet they remain in power - if you trust the people more than the gov't, then allowing for a ConCon was the way to go. IMHO

J
 
Top