Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould Illinois hold a constitutional convention to revise its current constitution?
Results so far:
| Yes | 50% | 2 votes | Total: 4 votes | |
| No | 50% | 2 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesEvery body should re-examine its political construction from time to time. It is healthy, like taking a personal inventory of faults and strengths and then resolving to improve. Nothing comes of it most of the time, we plod along as we always have after resolving to go to the gym or be more active in our neighborhood. States are no different. Government, like its citizens, runs on inertia. If nothing is too out of whack there is little reason to change.
That doesn't mean there isn't a reason to look for problems and suggest corrections. Even if things are tolerable, there is always room for improvement. Tallying up the negatives at regular intervals has a cumulative effect. If you find the same faults year after year, no one can say it's just a flash in the pan. How many people live in Illinois? It's a big state of extremes between urban and rural.
I needn't point out that a major American city is located to the north. There are some other, lesser, metropolitan areas. Then there are the vast stretches of farmland that span the length and breadth of the Land of Lincoln. There has to be a balance between population and area. Truth be told, Illinois is a very rural state, geographically speaking. People who live in cities have little inkling what goes on past the suburbs. People in the country are more aware of happenings in the city but those events touch them tangentially, if at all. Government's role is to balance the needs of the many against fairness for the few. I don't live in Illinois, but if it is like most places, more people live in cities or large towns than they do along out-of-the-way crossroads. A state is a collection of interests. Sometimes the are at cross purposes but the good of the state is in everyone's best interest.
There should be a convention to discuss the civic health of Illinois. That is what democracy is made of. The more voices heard, the better. Why would anyone be against such a proposition? People will complain about cost or about diversion of attention from more pressing matters. What can be more pressing than deciding how things get done in a large, municipal body? Who can complain about a little added scrutiny? a little more transparancy? a little more enfranchisement? a little more civic engagement? I have an answer: It is those who are happy with the status quo.
There is nothing wrong with being happy with the way things are if they are fine. No one will know if they are fine until people take a hard look, debate the tough questions, and come up with a recommendation. The recommendation may be to change nothing. That confirmation is worth knowing and making public. It reinforces trust.
Learn more about this author, Whalehead King.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The basic framework of the current Illinois Constitution is sufficient for its purposes. The most ethical manner by which to keep the document a "living document", as the founding fathers designed the United States Constitution to endure as it has, is to allow changes through the legislative process and that process alone. The proposed convention is both unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the future of the State of Illinois and its citizens.
Many may argue that this is not the shortest distance between two points in affecting change. However, we must remember that a complete overhaul should not be required of a document with as much thoughtful design as a Constitution. Also, by limiting change to the established process, special interests can be held at bay when proposing self serving modifications. These types of modifications are sure to be proposed at any such convention held at this time and with detrimental consequences that would waste the precious resources of the State.
Additionally, the individuals who would be required to attend a Constitutional convention are the same elected officials and other politically active people who have a vested interest in proposing changes that serve trendy, and perhaps superfluous needs. The conflicts of interest a procedure such as the one proposed presents in considering a complete overhaul of the backbone of our legislative process widely opens the potential for the creation of a document whose basic structure is flawed by the limited vision of self-motivated career politicians. These influences result in a very different environment than the one experienced by the original authors of the U.S. Constitution who held dear to the values of freedom, common humanity, respect for individual rights, service to the public body and the promise of happiness and prosperity at the dawn of a new nation.
Indeed, those positive inspirations will be drowned out by political party agendas, the bitterness over the recent failures of those elected to lead the State, and the sheer ambition that, unfortunately,drives many now elected to serve the people. These men and women who view their positions as ones of importance and power rather than as opportunities to serve God and their fellow human beings with conscientious responsibility will clamour so loudly that the noise will quell the voices of the few good public servants attending whose primary goal would be the minimal changes that are legitimately required.
Another aspect is the fact that in spite of great expense to the taxpayers of Illinois, the majority of the current Constitution would remain in place. ( Compare the current document to it's two predecessors and you can verify what type of change one may expect to result from a Con Con). An unbiased assessment will conclude that the modifications that are needed can be just as effectively brought into reality through proposed amendments far more efficiently than through the tedious review and redrafting of each segment as the current proposal mandates.
The current document is still very much alive and should remain so for many more decades with amendments passed through the legislative process.
Learn more about this author, Kathryn Dinardo.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- News (Other)
- US food safety organizations: Should they be overhauled or should a new, single agency be created?
- Should hookah lounges be allowed in Fairfield County, Connecticut?
- Should women who are arrested for prostitution have their names and addresses published in a local newspaper?
- Do you think Connecticut needs to reinstate tolls to maintain its roads?
- Is it OK for the state to remove control of parish finances from the Catholic diocese?
