McDonald v Chicago in

I have mixed views about the Chicago gun case. To put it best, I concur with the judgement. I am not a believer in "substantive due process", only procedural due process. I believe that the Bill of Rights was intended to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities provisions. I would have loved to have seen Slaughterhouse, Cruikshank, and Presser eliminated completely. SCOTUS did not address those cases which was a shame. I tend to agree much more with Justice Thomas's partly concurring and concurring in the judgment opinion. I do have strong biases against the Doe, Roe, and Casey cases however.

SCOTUS followed the current "selective incorporation" process, much the same way as the 1st amendment was passed on to the states.

I don't believe in the perfect being the enemy of the good, and overall this was good. I think it could be better, but this is a big improvement over crooks and cops being the only ones to have the guns. When only the police have guns, the result is a police state.

Regardless of that, one scary determination is that we are one judge away from losing this. Obama's Sotomayor is who we thought she was and took her Cruikshank support to SCOTUS. Ginsburg's civil liberty support ends at those she doesn't like. Stevens and Breyer are well known in their views and are no surprise. It is absolutely critical that a firewall is built to stop Obama from replacing one of the five.

This isn't over, not by a longshot.

Official Con Con opposition committee forms

Speaking of the Michigan Chamber, they are leading the way against this years constitutional convention aka con-con which will be on the ballot this November. I've discussed my own strong opposition to the con-con on several occasions which can be read on this link. It is too much of a risk of our checks and balances against massive governmental power.

From the Detroit News

A long list of interest groups has formed a coalition to oppose the constitutional convention proposal on the November ballot, organizers announced today.
Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution includes business, education, agricultural, local government, faith-based, transportation and health care groups. The coalition says it is concerned about "the costs in time, uncertainty and dollars" a constitutional convention would require.
"A constitutional convention will handcuff our next governor and legislature for at least two years and effectively prevent them from tackling issues like spending reform, tax policy, education and economic development," said Rich Studley, president of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce.

Backers of the so-called "con-con" -- including Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican gubernatorial candidate Sen. Tom George of Kalamazoo -- have said a rewrite of the Constitution would be the most effective way to make the reforms needed in state government.
The coalition said the convention would reopen the contentious issues recently decided by voters -- such as embryonic stem cell research, the affirmative action ban, gay marriage and assisted suicide, among others. There have been 31 amendments to the constitution since 1963.
Michigan's constitution was last rewritten in 1962. Law requires a constitutional convention issue be placed on the ballot every 16 years. Con-con ballot proposals were soundly defeated in 1978 and 1994. Some say the proposal has a better chance of passage this year because of general dissatisfaction with state government.
Approval of the ballot issue would require election of delegates, a series of meetings and another public vote on the end result of the convention. Cost estimates have run as high as $45 million, but backers of con-con say it would be much less than that.

The biggest reasons I oppose it is the push by Phil Power's people to reduce elections, eliminate recall provisions, and to raise taxes. The other reason is that in the off-time elections, those likely elected to be delegates are famous names or ex-politicians. They will be the ones writing the new constitution.

That is bad news, and this should be defeated.

Craig Ruff of Dome Magazine and Public Sector Consultants on constitutional convention

I was looking up some writings on the constitutional convention proposal which we will be voting on in 2010, and found some interesting stuff in Dome Magazine. Surprisingly to me, I haven't been familiar with it. It's quite interesting, and has some interesting comments on the articles, including Bob LaBrant and Richard McLellan, two individuals whom have earned my respect with their political knowledge.

Recently, Craig Ruff (former Milliken/Brickley staffer) of influential Public Sector Consultants in Lansing wrote several columns in Dome Magazine in support of the constitutional convention proposal and gave reasons for them. Some of his proposals I those I'd support. On other proposals I have strong disagreement. That does not change my opposition to a con-con in any matter largely because of the risks and processes involved in a con-con due to the rules of the game which I discussed in length several times, most recently on December 6th. That won't change at all even if it looks like 2010 will be a repeat of 1994. 

There are six columns Ruff wrote which are all at the Dome Magazine website. I recommend taking a look at them, as well as the comments, and my previous writings on this, no matter which side of the con-con debate you stand.

The first was titled Really Big Changes which is his introduction on this issue. He has his pros and cons on a con-con. Here are the pros. I didn't post his cons in the except because they aren't much different than what I wrote.

A Few Pros
The people of Michigan may gain from a convention looking over a document nearly 50 years old and amended 32 times since 1963.
Compare the history of the U.S. Constitution to Michigan’s constitution:

• The U.S. Constitution has been amended fewer times, even though the national document is 218 years old and the state constitution is 46 years old. Since 1789 and with the exception of the first 10 (the Bill of Rights) coming right off the bat in 1789-1791, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 17 times in 218 years, compared to the state constitution being amended 32 times in its 46 years.
• Since Michigan adopted its current constitution and adopted 32 amendments, we have added four amendments to the U.S. Constitution (Amendment 24 prohibiting poll taxes; the 25th prescribing presidential succession; the 26th setting 18 as the voting age; and the 27th requiring that the compensation to federal legislators be set after the election of new House members — this guy had been sitting on the “proposed and to be resolved” desk since 1792!).
• The state constitution’s length dwarfs by thousands of words that of the nation’s. Put the two in the same font size on a scale. If you weighed what the state constitution does, you’d call an 800 number for a weight-loss pill or 911.

Bogged down in excruciating detail, the state constitution is less a template for how government governs and how we balance the rights of individuals and the powers of government than a laundry list of this is how you should do that details.
How detailed is the Michigan Constitution? Allowing for space, I must deflate fonts to give three examples.

• For the retirement of notes and bonds issued under Section 26 of Article X of the 1908 constitution there is hereby appropriated from the general fund each year during their life a sum equal to the amount of principal and interest payments due and payable in each year.
• The legislature may authorize lotteries and permit the sale of lottery tickets in the manner provided by law. No law enacted after January 1, 2004, that authorizes any form of gambling shall be effective, nor after January 1, 2004, shall any new state lottery games utilizing table games or player operated mechanical or electronic devices be established, without the approval of a majority of electors voting in a statewide general election and a majority of electors voting in the township or city where gambling will take place. This section will not apply to gambling in up to three casinos in the City of Detroit or to Indian tribal gaming.
• State Police Troopers and Sergeants shall, through their elected representative designated by 50% of such troopers and sergeants, have the right to bargain collectively with their employer concerning conditions of their employment, compensation, hours, working conditions, retirement, pensions, and other aspects of employment except promotions which will be determined by competitive examination and performance on the basis or merit, efficiency and fitness, and they shall have the right 30 days after commencement of such bargaining to submit any unresolved disputes to binding arbitration for the resolution thereof the same as now provided by law for Public Police and Fire Departments.

Dorothy Parker inscribed her tombstone and gave us good advice: If you can read this, you’re standing too close.

 As strong as my opposition to a con-con is, those are good points. It has been amendment, more often than it should have been. However, those amendments can also be repealed in the same way. I remember the gambling proposal quite well. Look how that's worked with the new Indian casinos (which I have no problem with). I voted no for the record.

The big push is for abolishing one of the legislature chambers. Ruff suggests the following:

You can argue that two houses are better than one because they protect against hasty decisions. Three, four, or more legislative chambers would be even better if that is your goal. To my knowledge, Nebraska has not enacted policy any smarter or dumber than 49 two-house states.

To me, the gravest threat to democratic progress and governmental efficacy is paralysis, not haste or recklessness. The people still have a governor who can veto; courts that can render rulings on the constitutionality of statutes; and future elections and legislators who can reverse bad decisions.

No Michigan county, city, township, or K-12 school system elects two or more legislative bodies. Why not? If it makes sense for state government, wouldn’t it be rational for local units to do so? The trickle-down philosophy behind the federal system extends to nearly all states, yet not their local jurisdictions. Was that because it looked clunky, confusing, and duplicative to have multiple bodies setting policy? Very likely

A unicameral state assembly has made sense since 1962. It would make smoother sailing for policy change with plenty of protection against nutty change through gubernatorial vetoes, court reviews, and future elections. It would lessen confusion among voters about who should be held accountable for legislative decisions, their senator or their representative or both. It would marginalize those frequent, petty squabbles between the members; the aura, turf, and legitimacy of each chamber; and those persistent “look at who’s angling for your seat” shenanigans

......
Two legislative chambers in Lansing slow down policy change. They cause unnecessary friction in serving the customers of democracy. Two legislative chambers are anachronistic.

As much as I think there are too many salaries and politicians in government, I can't go along with this. The big reason is that I prefer slow change to rush jobs. We need checks and balances, and eliminating a check and balance on a level the size of the state or federal government is a risk I don't think we need to take. Bad laws often pass one chamber. They normally don't get taken up in the other. Sometimes good laws pass and don't taken up in the other chamber. That's a price I'm willing to pay, along with the salaries. We'd have a lot more taxes and spending if there was a unicameral legislature.

Two columns that are very interesting that I haven't thought about are regarding two members per seat and parliament. Regarding two members per seat

Can you handle two people representing you in the state legislature?

Picture that voters in each district send to a single legislative body the two highest vote getters in the general election. Each gets a percentage of a single vote on the state Assembly’s floor equal to the percentage of the vote s/he received in the last election.

For example, Assemblyperson Judith, a Democrat, garners 55 percent of the vote against her Republican challenger, John, who receives 45 percent. Judith gets 0.55 percent of one vote on the Assembly floor; Raymond gets 0.45.

What’s the point of this? Parties, if rational, would nominate candidates who can maximize the general election vote; presumably, nominees would appeal to independents and folks who tilt toward the other party. We would get more moderate, less sharply partisan people in the legislature. Currently, in so many safely Democratic or Republican areas, rabid partisans nominate the most extreme candidates.

All political parties would strive to mount strong challenges in all districts. There is little point, today, for a Republican to run in a Detroit district or a Democrat to run in Ottawa County. They are sacrificial lambs. If, however, the two leading vote-getters get seated, Republicans shrewdly would contest Detroit districts (and Democrats, Ottawa County seats) because even a small percentage of the vote would give the loser some clout in Lansing.

I don't think it would pass the one person one vote standard under federal constitutional law (Equal protection). That aside, it's an interesting concept. Democrats in state rep districts usually get 28-40 percent of the vote here in Livingston County based-races. I think Donna Anderson got almost 40% in her race against Valde Garcia in 2006, mostly due to running almost even in the Ingham County portion of the state senate district. I haven't researched or thought about this idea to have a strong opinion one way or the other. It has advantages and disadvantages. However, one thing it would not change is that candidates need to fit the district.

I couldn't disagree more with the parliamentary system, for the same reasons I opposed a unicameral legislature. This is a case of different philosophies. As Ruff says in Parliament Works Better:

Previous columns have called for a unicameral legislature with two members elected in each district, each with a legislative vote equal to the share of the popular vote. In case readers view that as too timid, I propose that Michigan adopt a parliamentary system.
When then-Lieutenant Governor Jim Brickley chastised me for thinking small about America’s policy making machinery and its flaws, he said: “Our system’s antiquated. The fear of a throne drove the constitution’s framers to shackle the public will. Today, I fear the tyranny of paralysis.”

Judicial appointments, which Ruff supports,  are something I can not support. Judicial appointments by chief executives I support even less. It goes back to my Jeffersonian views when it comes to checks and balances. I've seen way too many political appointments run roughshod over the constitution with judicial activism. It is nothing new. It goes back to Dred Scot, and really rears its ugly head post-reconstruction. Slaughter-House, Cruikshank, Plessy, Presser, and Lochner. After FDR gets his people, we get Wickard v Filburn. Brown v Board of Education was the right judgment, but should have been written better on clear 14th Amendment grounds. With the Burger Court onward - Roe and Doe kickstarted judicial activism. Then we get the baffling O'Connor with her look to foreign laws with Gratz and Grutter cases. I may get flamed, but Bush V Gore wasn't all that great either - although SCOTUS wasn't AS bad as Florida's Supreme Court on that one. Both could have done better.

State courts aren't perfect, and neither are electing judges. He uses the Irish judges stereotype. As he says "Erin wins."

Democratic adrenaline drives people to assume that their sheer act of voting produces judicial competence. Excuse me as I try to hold back from projectile vomiting. I do not buy the pretense that voters actually know enough to judge judicial candidates.
Aside from a smattering of partisan, special interest, or personal adherents, few honestly can defend Michigan’s politically charged system of picking judges. Running successfully for judgeships are people with good solid names (once in a blue moon has a Cavanagh/Cavanaugh, Kelley/Kelly, Corrigan, Hathaway, or Mc-something lost a judicial race) and often have good track records winning other elections, i.e., have name recognition, fundraising abilities, and solid organizational bases.
Are these political assets judicial assets?

That's true. Brennan.

He goes on, but his proposal isn't as bad as most "appoint judges" proposals I've seen. It's similar to the Missouri system.

Since the Democratic-controlled U.S. Senate’s rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, presidential appointees all have been nondescript ciphers or ideological purists. I was disgusted by the U.S. Senate’s rejection of Bork, among the most cerebral and intellectually inquisitive people a president has sought to place on the U.S. Supreme Court since Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis. Since Bork’s rejection, every nominee has faced sharply partisan and ideological badgering in the Senate.
Call me an elitist, but here is a plan to award critically important judicial posts to the well-deserving. The governor appoints every state judge or justice to a term of 10 years. The governor must select from three highly/exceptionally qualified people recommended by the State Bar Association. The governor selects one, or if the governor rejects all three, the State Bar Association nominates three more candidates, one of whom the governor must pick. The nomination goes to the state Senate, where it takes a two-thirds super-majority to reject.
Upon appointment, the judge or justice must seek voters’ approval at the next general election. The referendum before voters is, “Do you wish to retain Judge/Justice _______ in office or not?” If a plurality votes “yes,” the judge may serve out the 10-year term. If a plurality votes “no,” the judge vacates the office, and the appointment process starts over.
While a sitting judge may be renominated and reappointed for a second 10-year term, voters still must ratify the choice at the next election. After 20 years, a person may not win reappointment to the same bench. A judge who reaches the age of 70 must retire.

I prefer a choice of names instead of an up or down vote, but at least that has a check and balance. I'd rather have it be as it is now, flawed as it is. I also think that Supreme Nominations should be the same process as appeals court nominations is now (not party nominated - straight up elections or appointment of vacancy and election).  I don't want the State Bar of Michigan however getting involved in this. You can't take ideology out of judicial selections in the post Lochner and Post Roe eras. It is a requirement for attorneys to join the State Bar of Michigan, which is understandable. It is best that the State Bar is removed at least from direct politics - on either side.

Lastly is the Fusion ballot. This is similar to the New York style of system.

Imagine a ballot on which you may vote for a candidate under several party lines. You may like a candidate because he or she is identified on the ballot as a Democrat or Republican, our safe, big-tent binary choices. You may like a candidate who is a conservative, liberal, libertarian, or socialist. Personally, you hold a value of right-to-life or pro-choice. You demand that government cuts taxes or increases them to maintain and expand public services. You are willing to sacrifice jobs for a cleaner environment, or you prefer to sacrifice a cleaner environment for more jobs.
Craig runs for the state Senate. Democrats have nominated him. So, too, have the Liberal Party, the Right-to-Life Party, the Environment Protection Party, and the Friends of Transportation Party. You may cast a vote for him under any party line, and come election evening, the clerk totals every vote for Craig under every party. Craig loses to Sally because she has gathered more votes combined cast for her on Independent, Republican, Economic Growth, Pro Choice, and Champions of Less Regulation partisan lines.
This is called fusion. More than one political party may nominate and endorse the same candidate as other parties. In the end, their votes for Craig and Sally are combined.
What is the advantage of a fusion ballot? Voters get to express a more customized opinion, but do not have to throw away their votes on a candidate who cannot win. A voter may be voting for Craig because he opposes abortions. Another may vote for him because he is a staunch environmentalist. Yet another may prefer him because he pledges to put more funding into transportation. Many people will vote for Craig because he carries the brand of Democrat. The voter gets the right to express a specialized or brand name opinion of Craig, but is not forced to waste a vote on a candidate who has no chance in hell of being elected. When the final tally is in, Craig or Sally goes to the state legislature more bound to specific values than general pabulum.
If you are a Republican candidate in what otherwise is a pretty safely Democratic district, you might work hard to peel off some Democratic voters by being pro-choice, pro-environment, and/or pro-transportation funding. Similarly, a Democrat running in a safely Republican district may win the backing of Right-to-Lifers, economic free marketers, and smaller government types. Fusion ballots encourage candidates to niche market, while also being part of a big tent.
.....
A recent example comes from Long Island’s Nassau County. In a race for county executive, the Democrat won 107,777 votes as a Democrat. The Republican won 112,340 votes as a Republican. The Democrat also won 10,334 votes from minor parties; the Republican, 5,534. The Democrat holds a razor-thin lead of 118,111 to 117,874, with thousands of absentee ballots yet to be counted. A Conservative Party candidate won 9,552 votes. Clearly, had the local Conservative Party leaders felt comfortable in nominating the Republican, the GOP candidate would have won pretty handily. They didn’t. He didn’t.
John Lindsay won reelection as New York City mayor in 1969. He had been elected mayor in 1965 as the nominee of the Republican and Liberal parties. In 1969, he lost the GOP primary for mayor, but managed to win reelection as a Liberal. A year later, James Buckley ran for the U.S. Senate in New York State under the Conservative Party banner. He beat the liberal Republican incumbent and a liberal Democrat challenger. For three years, neither the mayor of New York City nor one of the state’s U.S. senators held office as a Republican or Democrat.

Although a correction is in order as the Republican won in Nassau County.

I can support this. I like the ideas of minor and major parties supporting the same tickets when it is called for.
However, I don’t think the NY style will affect things much. Every senate race since Buckley was an R or D. Every house race there I’ve followed has been the same way. I’m less sure about state house and state senate.

The only possible thing I can really see is the occasional split leading to a minor upset like there was in NY-23 when the GOP leadership blundered in a big way by choosing a candidate in DeDe Scozzafava that did not fit that district (and neither did Doug Hoffman for that matter on the Conservative party ballot). NY-23 was an aberration however because there was no primary.

Under the NY system here, you’d probably have the conservative party/R fusions in Zeeland, the Right to Life/R fusions in Livingston County, and Gun Rights/party fusions in those areas, but it would be the same people winning.

If people want moderate candidates, moderates need to vote in the primaries. I don’t see things changing otherwise. So while I support the fusion system, I don’t see it changing the ideological factor much in elections.

All in all, Dome Magazine has some good reads on different political news and commentary in Lansing. The series of con-con and proposal discussion is one of them. It doesn't change my mind, but the issues themselves were worth looking over.

Argus pushing for consitutional convention in 2010

There's been a push for a constitutional convention (con-con) by a small, but influential group of Lansing elites and their followers. This has been going on for the last three years. I'm strongly opposed to opening Pandora's Box here. The Argus fails to make a solid case for it here. In fact this is one of the sloppiest editorials I've ever seen from the Argus

Some background - I've been aware of the con-con push since December of 2006, almost exactly three years ago.

Heads up! Property Tax Raisers want to change Michigan's Constitution and eliminate safeguards - 12-13-2006

This group of Lansing insiders, elitists, and termed out legislators (Frank Kelley, Joe Schwarz, Harry Gast, Phil Power, Debbie Dingell, and John Hertel) had their agenda they wanted to push. They did not like constitutional amendments, Headlee's protection on property taxes, term limits (I agree with that aspect), give the governor much more power, raise taxes, eliminate recalls, and end elections of judges and university trustees. That was as of 2006.

The issue died down, at least in public until July 2008. There was a debate on the Right Michigan website on this issue between myself (oppose), Dennis Lennox (support), and Chet Zarko (opposed).

July 10, 2008 - Michigan does not need a constitutional convention

August 12, 2008 - Updated

I rehashed the reasons listed in 2006, but Zarko caught something that reminds me what assume means. Ass-u-me.

In the Right Michigan post, I also missed one reason more than any other why it needs to be opposed. Outside Lansing and Oakland Politics blogger Chetly Zarko pointed it out. He said this.

I agree with RM here, with this addition, copied from my response to DL on his item.
The RMGN debacle is evidence of what bad can come from convention.

Special interests will own the delegates, particularly since the Dems are sitting on the reform Marty Knollenberg proposed in Oct. 2007 that I pointed out to him last year. The Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1977 forgot - understandably due to the rareness of conventions - to include delegates in reporting category defintions. And limit definitions.

Democrats - I'm calling Ward Connerly if there's a convention and there no law to say he can't give me one giant donation, which I'd never have to report. And I will run if there is a Con-Con, despite my hatred for it - largely to protect MCRI, but also to protect the initiative process, Headlee, and all that the people have earned in the last 40 years in at least marginally checking government excess.

Republicans - Stryker nightmare.

It's not individual candidates that evade the radar - its the potential for competing blocs of "sponsored" candidates. A Herculean battle would occur.

You think the raw costs of a convention in terms of administrative costs, staff, space, etc. are high. The political costs, and the subtle changes that can only ultimately favor the elite power interests since they are best positioned, are huge.

Fight both the Con RMGN and the Con of the Con-Con.

That is something I missed completely and is why the word assume makes an ass of "u" and me. I assumed these are covered by the campaign finance laws. Nope. Billionire radical Jon Stryker can dump his billions into these races without anyone knowing. He can also call his sister out of state so she can dump her billions. All the Lansing and DC interests can dump their money, and George Soros himself could dump money in there, without any one of us knowing about that. All those that want to increase our taxes, earmark spending, grab our guns, criminalize certain speech (Colorado just did it), and do whatever they can think of if they can get their people in there.

April 09, The Argus had an editorial written by Rich Perlberg on this, who at the time hid his cards. I commented on that  here

Literally, all of this is on the table, and that doesn't mention safeguards on taxes. That's on the table. When it comes to state law, the Michigan Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is checked only by the US Constitution.

In addition to that, who knows for a fact what laws govern elections of constitutional delegates? Under the current campaign finance laws and election laws, this is an unknown. They did not include the position of "constitution delegate" in their laws because it is so rare. This last happened in 1963. The campaign finance laws were post Watergate, 1977.

Soon after Perlberg's April editorial, I posted what was at risk. In short. Everything.

Trial by jury for some misdemeanors, racial preferences, human cloning and embryonic research, recalls, elections of judicial officers, safeguards requiring that all bills are one subject (as compared to the federal government), death penalty, election of attorney general and secretary of state, property tax safeguards, eminent domain (Michigan is much more restrictive than the feds), collective bargaining provisions for police officers, and that's not getting to gun control, abortion, vouchers, and those issues, as well as the policy for amending the constitution.

Also in April, Terri Land pushed for safeguards regarding the con-con in case it passes. Those were ignored by the legislature.

Land wanted to require delegates to be citizens and residents of the district, wanted to set the primary election in February and general in May, establish policy of delegates to be the same as state rep/state senate provisions, make the term of office the 2010 and  not 2012 boundaries addressing redistricting changes, vacancies of delegates much be of same political party as elected, require 2/3 vote for removal, and most importantly place delegates under authority of campaign finance laws. Right now, we don't know how it works.
----

That finally gets us to the Argus editorial. From the Argus

Voters should start giving consideration to calling for a state constitutional convention when it is placed on the ballot next November.

It's a risky ploy. The writing of a constitution opens the door for all sorts of mischief. You can be sure there will be efforts by out-of-state interests who want to push for social issues including gun control, abortion, capital punishment, gay marriage and state-funded vouchers.
..............
Normally, we would agree. But there comes a time when you have to seriously question if the unknown hazards of a new constitution could be any worse that the terrible slide we've seen in the state since the constitution was last rewritten and ratified in 1963.

The first question that needs to be asked is this. What is the problem in Lansing? Is it the constitution, a small part of the constitution, or is it the people in Lansing. To correct the first needs a con-con, but the second can be corrected by an amendment, and the last can be corrected by a simple election.

More:

Can you blame state leaders for this economic failure? Of course not. But it is clear that the state has changed dramatically since the constitution was last changed 36 years ago. It is also clear that Lansing is impotent when it comes to creating — much less executing — a long-term plan to combat the new realities.Instead of solutions, we get constant bickering and partisan grandstanding. Republicans say no to anything resembling new taxes or revenue; Democrats stand in force against meaningful spending reform.

The Argus blames the people. That can't be corrected with a con-con. In fact, a con-con would make it worse if the problem is the current legislature. Why? Because delegates are elected in the same districts as the legislators. A con-con is a partisan election, with primary and general. In fact, it will be more hard-edged than normal because it is a special election with lower turnout. The Argus blew away its own theory with its reasoning.

t's hard to imagine a rewritten constitution that could provide a worse government than what we have now.

I find it easy to imagine it being worse. Put the current people instead of circa 1963 people in charge of creating a constitution. The Argus then puts its own recommendations.

Get rid of term limits. It hasn't worked.

That can be done by amendment.

Adopt a graduated state income tax.

I highly disagree, but that can also be done by amendment.

Require balanced budgets. Fire all lawmakers and the governor if they fail to make the deadline. Ban them from the public payroll — including lobbying — for life. We don't need failures.

Balanced budgets are already required.

Consider a unicameral legislature.

Mixed views.  The good and bad with this is that it makes bills easier to pass. Good bills can pass, but so can horrific bills. Bicameral legislatures check and balance each other so horrible crap does not get through.

Revamp and reduce the number of K-12 and county intermediate school districts.

A con-con is not needed for that. Districts can decide that on their own.  In fact they should. That is something that should be a policy issue and not at the heart of the structure of the state government.

Provide a cap on state employee benefits.End tenure.

Both of those can be done by contracts.  It's a policy issue, not a structural issue.

Provide a voucher system that will allow parents to reward effective schools.

The Argus mentions their worries about special interests. Then they do the same thing they warn about with special interests here. I'm not against vouchers, but that is not something that should be in the constitution - the structure of government.

Provide constitutional protection for greater funding for high-poverty communities.

Why should this be in the constitution?

End the election of judges.

HELL NO. Right now we need more checks and balances on government power than ever before. 

Create a nonpartisan commission to redraw state and national legislative districts.

I don't like the current system on redistricting, but I don't like commissions here. I addressed that in the past. If donkeys and elephants pick the "nonpartisan" commission, expect even more entrenched incumbents. I'd rather have computer generated maps with limited breakpoints (County/City/Township). I don't support nonpartisan redistricting. I support nonBIASED redistricting. There is a BIG difference.

Make all elections nonpartisan.

That's how it is in much of Nebraska.However, nobody here is stopping non-partisan candidates from running for any office in Michigan. They just don't win.

Crazy ideas? Unworkable? Maybe. But are any of them worse than what we live with now?

That was a sloppy and poor editorial with poor reasoning. They didn't do their homework.

Most of those ideas don't need a con-con. Even when it comes to "nonpartisn elections," they are only partisan because the people want them to be. Independents can run with no party affiliation. They don't win. People vote for democrats or republicans in most cases. I have voted for 3rd party candidates in the past, and none of them  have won.

The Argus does not mention why a con-con is the best vehicle for these reforms, and also does not mention anything about the rules of the game involved in a con-con. In short, if the voters approve a con-con in 2010, there will be a partisan election to determine who the delegates will be. The delegates will then write a new constitution with everything, literally everything on the table, subject to these approximately 150 one-termers that do not ever have to face the people again.

In addition, we do not know if delegates are subject to Michigan's campaign finance laws. I assume not. They are not specifically mentioned in the election laws. That means we probably have no idea who is funding the delegates, and if there is any disclosure. Jon Stryker is a billionaire and is the bankroller of the democrats here in Michigan. Expect millions to come flying in from Stryker, Soros, out of state interests, and the like. This is the holy grail of power, and they know that.

While we may win big, especially in 2010 with Obama and Granholm's piss poor job, we may also lose everything as well. I don't like that risk with the constitution. It should not be messed with more than it absolutely has to be.

Obama craps on our "Right to an attorney"

To anyone with libertarian leanings that voted for Obama - I told you so. I don't have much time to go into details, but this is bad. We have a right to counsel in our Constitution for a reason. Often, people charged with crimes who are convicted are so because of their own words to the police. Many of us mistakenly believe that the police our on our side. They are state actors, as are the prosecutors. Many cops are good. I know several. Some aren't good. I know a few of them as well. They are human. Having an attorney is a safeguard against self-incrimination. If I am charged with a felony or a high misdemeanor, or if it looks like I will be charged, the first thing I will do is to contact a lawyer. I will not be a fool for a client, and I can represent myself better than most people could.

The case that Obama wants to overturn is Michigan v Jackson and you can read it here.

From the AP

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."

The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.

The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."

Bright said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.

Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.

SCOTUSblog has more, as does Volokh

Well, Obama and company seem to be consistant. They hate all of our freedoms.

Secretary of State proposes Constitutional Convention procedures

A major press release came out from the Secretary of State's office regarding the upcoming con-con on the ballot. I'll need to see the exact language before giving final opinions, but this is a good start for discussion purposes and brings this front and center. We do not know if this will be needed or not, but we do know that the con-con WILL be on the ballot in 2010. It may pass or fail, but we need to prepare like it will pass, regardless of our feelings on this one way or the other.

Legislation being drafted to put process in place

Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land is proposing legislation to establish procedures for a possible Constitutional Convention, a move that prepares Michigan if next year voters call for one.

Voters decide every 16 years whether a convention will be convened to revise Michigan's Constitution. The question will be on the Nov. 2, 2010 general election ballot. While minor provisions regarding a convention remain in law, procedures for electing delegates and convening a convention were repealed in 1967. Land's proposal ensures that a process is in place should the ballot question be approved.

"A recent pattern of attempts to amend sections of the constitution indicates a strong possibility of calling for a convention," Land said. "Establishing a process ahead of time lays the groundwork for an effective, well-run convention if one is needed."

Under the constitution's provisions, the convention would begin work in 2011. It would consist of 148 delegates -- one from each state Senate and state House district. State legislators currently in office are precluded from serving as delegates.

There's the background. That means there will be possibly three delegates from Livingston County. One for the Bill Rogers district, one from the Cindy Denby District, and Valde Garcia's district which also covers Shiawassee and part of Ingham County.

The proposals are as follows.

Requires convention delegates to be U.S. citizens and qualified electors of the delegate district.

A no brainer.

Sets the primary election date for delegate candidates on the regular February election date, and the general election on the regular May date.

This is needed to comply with existing law. Elections are possible four days a year, and the convention is scheduled for July as given in the State Constitution. The only possible dates for this election are February and May. While this is a relatively uncontroversial proposal, it's a must. Unfortunately, the existing law is also not as specific as I'd like it regarding the primary procedures, and I'd like to see this be a primary election instead of a convention or county party choice system.

Establishes delegate nominating petition or filing fee procedures similar to those for state senators and representatives. Candidate write-in and withdrawal procedures also are included.

This is something that isn't covered at all and is how it should be.

Requires the convention to convene at noon on the second Tuesday in July 2011. The convention continues until its final adjournment.
Makes the term of office for delegates coincide with the convention, regardless of boundary changes resulting from any potential redistricting.

Also important, although I'd be careful in how this is drafted. When will redistricting be?

Requires the Secretary of State to call the convention to order and preside over it until a convention president is elected.

Not a big deal on controversy, just a simple procedure.

Specifies that when vacancies occur due to resignation or other reasons, the governor must appoint a resident of the same district and political party as the delegate who is vacating the position.

I don't like gubenatorial appointments, but that is probably the best that can be done given the current laws in place. This is an improvement (governor appoints all vacancies, period).

Requires a two-thirds vote by the entire delegation to remove a delegate from office. It also establishes recount and recall provisions similar to those for state senators and representatives.

I need to check current law on this before I comment. I like 2/3, but I'd restrict it further to misconduct or no-shows.(outside of recall provisions). 2/3 should be a safeguard against that.

Compensates the president and delegates with mileage reimbursement for one round trip per week when the convention is in session.

Mixed views.

Puts delegates and committees under Michigan's Campaign Finance Act. Contribution limits are similar to those for state lawmakers within appropriate timelines. It also puts delegates under the Lobby Act as lobbyable public officials.
Land will work with lawmakers to have the legislation introduced once drafting is completed.

This is the major provision. Right now, it is not known whether delegate candidates fall under the campaign finance act. That's an open question depending on a few technicalities.

Now I want to close out this mentioning one thing. These are proposals, not law, and may not be the provisions passed. The legislature needs to be watched like a hawk on which provisions are being considered. This is the biggest issue on the ballot since 1994 - which was the last time a con-con was on the ballot (Every 16 years). If this passes, there will be a new constitution in Michigan. The State Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land here (second only to the US Constitution). Literally everything is on the line, regarding every issue. This is the Holy Grail of power.
I posted the other day a small sample of what is in stake with a con-con.

The con-con needs to be defeated, but we need to prepare for its passing so we are not caught offguard in February.

What is at risk at a Constitutional Convention?

One thing I keep saying in my strong opposition to a Constitutional Convention is that literally everything is on the table. I don't think that gets the point across as much as it should since I realized that most people haven't read the Constitution of the State of Michigan which was enacted in 1963.

You can find it here (hopefully, the link works) or through a couple of clicks from Michiganlegislature.org.

If a con-con passes, all of our state level safeguards is at risk including:

Article 1 - sec 6 Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

The Supreme Court has not yet incorporated the 2nd Amendment to the states through the 14th Amendment's equal protection or due process clauses.

Article 1, sec 20 In every criminal prosecution, the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, which may consist of less than 12 jurors in prosecutions for misdemeanors punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year; to be informed of the nature of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him or her; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his or her favor; to have the assistance of counsel for his or her defense; to have an appeal as a matter of right, except as provided by law an appeal by an accused who pleads guilty or nolo contendere shall be by leave of the court; and as provided by law, when the trial court so orders, to have such reasonable assistance as may be necessary to perfect and prosecute an appeal.

This is more in depth trial by jury than federal constitution.

Article 1, sec 26 26 Affirmative action programs.
Sec. 26.

(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(2) The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(3) For the purposes of this section "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.

(4) This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

(5) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(6) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of Michigan anti-discrimination law.

(7) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

(8) This section applies only to action taken after the effective date of this section.

(9) This section does not invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.

Affirmative Action is no more. The left will want to change that.

Article 1, section § 27 Human embryo and embryonic stem cell research.
Section 27.

(1) Nothing in this section shall alter Michigan’s current prohibition on human cloning.

(2) To ensure that Michigan citizens have access to stem cell therapies and cures, and to ensure that physicians and researchers can conduct the most promising forms of medical research in this state, and that all such research is conducted safely and ethically, any research permitted under federal law on human embryos may be conducted in Michigan, subject to the requirements of federal law and only the following additional limitations and requirements:

(a) No stem cells may be taken from a human embryo more than fourteen days after cell division begins; provided, however, that time during which an embryo is frozen does not count against this fourteen day limit.

(b) The human embryos were created for the purpose of fertility treatment and, with voluntary and informed consent, documented in writing, the person seeking fertility treatment chose to donate the embryos for research; and

(i) the embryos were in excess of the clinical need of the person seeking the fertility treatment and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research; or

(ii) the embryos were not suitable for implantation and would otherwise be discarded unless they are used for research.

(c) No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human embryos for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures.

(d) All stem cell research and all stem cell therapies and cures must be conducted and provided in accordance with state and local laws of general applicability, including but not limited to laws concerning scientific and medical practices and patient safety and privacy, to the extent that any such laws do not:

(i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by the provisions of this section; or

(ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies or cures.

(3) Any provision of this section held unconstitutional shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

History: Add. Init., approved Nov. 4, 2008, Eff. Dec. 19, 2008

This was prop 2. I hate this law, but those who support this are risking it by voting for a con-con.

Article 2, sec 8 - Sec. 8.

Laws shall be enacted to provide for the recall of all elective officers except judges of courts of record upon petition of electors equal in number to 25 percent of the number of persons voting in the last preceding election for the office of governor in the electoral district of the officer sought to be recalled. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

Recalls are a check and balance against the government. They are at risk with a con-con. Article 2, sec 9 provides for ballot iniatitives and referendums. Article 2, sec 10 is term limits. I don't like them, but many do, and that's at risk with a con-con. I'd support changing them by amendment. (which is also at risk with a con-con)

Article 4, sec 24 - No law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title. No bill shall be altered or amended on its passage through either house so as to change its original purpose as determined by its total content and not alone by its title.
Sec. 25. No law shall be revised, altered or amended by reference to its title only. The section or sections of the act altered or amended shall be re-enacted and published at length.

A guard against Surprises. That's at risk.

Article 4, Section 46 - No law shall be enacted providing for the penalty of death.

If you oppose the death penalty, that's at risk with a con-con.

Article 5, section 21 - The governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general shall be elected for four-year terms at the general election in each alternate even-numbered year.

The lieutenant governor, secretary of state and attorney general shall be nominated by party conventions in a manner prescribed by law. In the general election one vote shall be cast jointly for the candidates for governor and lieutenant governor nominated by the same party.

Vacancies in the office of the secretary of state and attorney general shall be filled by appointment by the governor.

Do you want to be able to elect the Attorney General and Secretart of State offices? That's at risk. Some want to have the governor appoint everything.

Article VI, sec 2 - The supreme court shall consist of seven justices elected at non-partisan elections as provided by law. The term of office shall be eight years and not more than two terms of office shall expire at the same time. Nominations for justices of the supreme court shall be in the manner prescribed by law. Any incumbent justice whose term is to expire may become a candidate for re-election by filing an affidavit of candidacy, in the form and manner prescribed by law, not less than 180 days prior to the expiration of his term.

Do you want to still be able to elect judges? I do, despite the last election results.

I can go on and on. Article VII sec 11 limits county debt. Article VII sec 21 limits taxes of cities/villages for "municipal purposes". Section 26 prohibits cities from loaning credit for any private interest. Section 32 requires local governments to have public hearings before a budget is enacted. Article IX, sec 8 exempts food from sales tax. Sec 9 limites gas tax to transportation. Section 23 allows for the books to be open for inspection. Section 24 protects pensions (which is why the MEA is probably against a con-con)

Section 25 deserves special mention.

Property taxes and other local taxes and state taxation and spending may not be increased above the limitations specified herein without direct voter approval. The state is prohibited from requiring any new or expanded activities by local governments without full state financing, from reducing the proportion of state spending in the form of aid to local governments, or from shifting the tax burden to local government. A provision for emergency conditions is established and the repayment of voter approved bonded indebtedness is guaranteed. Implementation of this section is specified in Sections 26 through 34, inclusive, of this Article.

All of those are at risk.

Section 35 is the trust fund for natural resources. That is at risk. So is the Veterans trust fund. Section 37. Section 40 - natural resources.

Article X, section 2 limits eminent domation.

Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefore being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law. If private property consisting of an individual’s principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of compensation made and determined for that taking shall be not less than 125% of that property’s fair market value, in addition to any other reimbursement allowed by law. Compensation shall be determined in proceedings in a court of record.

“Public use” does not include the taking of private property for transfer to a private entity for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues. Private property otherwise may be taken for reasons of public use as that term is understood on the effective date of the amendment to this constitution that added this paragraph.

In a condemnation action, the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to demonstrate, by the preponderance of the evidence, that the taking of a private property is for a public use, unless the condemnation action involves a taking for the eradication of blight, in which case the burden of proof is on the condemning authority to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the taking of that property is for a public use. (146)

Any existing right, grant, or benefit afforded to property owners as of November 1, 2005, whether provided by this section, by statute, or otherwise, shall be preserved and shall not be abrogated or impaired by the constitutional amendment that added this paragraph.

That is only A STATE PROTECTION. Poletown was overruled a few years back by the conservative Supreme Court. It was later codified in this constitutional amendment. The codified part is at risk with a con-con.

Article XI, section 5 allows for collective bargaining for the MSP troopers and sgts.

Article XII, section 1 provides for Amendments.

There's plenty more there, and that doesn't even get into judicial interpretation of these laws. Everything is literally at risk with a con-con. Liberals and conservatives alike have a lot to lose.

Perlberg Argus editorial on Constitutional Convention

One issue I'm following closely is the Constitutional Convention issue for 2010. On the ballot will be a question of a con-con. Quite simply, if it passes, there will be a new constitution in Michigan, with literally everything on the table.

I am 100% against a con-con for reasons I explained here and here. This mentions what can be done in a constitution covention and how delegates to the convention are chosen.

Rich Perlberg seems to have a few concerns as well on this, although he hides his cards to his views on a con-con. Interestingly, both the MEA and the Chamber have their guards up.

The vote takes place in November 2010. If the statewide proposal passes, then a convention of 148 delegates will be elected to draft a new version of the state's constitution, last rewritten in 1963. The new version will be submitted to voters, who will give it the ultimate thumbs-up or thumbs-down.

Next year's vote is embedded in the Michigan Constitution and must take place every 16 years. The last two votes — in 1978 and 1994 — were overwhelmingly defeated. There are a number of folks who hope next year's results will be similar.

Some unlikely allies, such as the state's most influential business organization and Michigan's largest teachers' union, are already stoking the fires of opposition.

He then goes on to the real concerns.

The MEA and the state chamber are on more solid ground when they argue that a constitution works best when it's not frequently and radically changed. The document that governs our nation has withstood the test of time for more than 200 years with only 27 amendments.

The big worry for Rich Studley, president of the state chamber, and Ed Sarpolus, government affairs director of the MEA, is the Pandora's box of issues that could be on the table with a constitutional convention.

All of a sudden, all sorts of emotional issues are at play: abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, affirmative action, school vouchers, gun rights, prayer in school, judicial elections, marijuana decriminalization, and so on.

The advent of any one of these issues by itself would bring in out-of-state money and influence. Think of the circus — and unintended consequences — if all are in play simultaneously.

Literally, all of this is on the table, and that doesn't mention safeguards on taxes. That's on the table. When it comes to state law, the Michigan Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is checked only by the US Constitution.

In addition to that, who knows for a fact what laws govern elections of constitutional delegates? Under the current campaign finance laws and election laws, this is an unknown. They did not include the position of "constitution delegate" in their laws because it is so rare. This last happened in 1963. The campaign finance laws were post Watergate, 1977.

I will say this. If this does pass and if I'm still in state which I hope to be, I will be running as a Republican (it's a partisan office) for delegate for one of the two positions (they mirror the legislature positions). I will file the day after election day. I will be planning this long before election day just in case it does pass.

We need to be prepared just in case this does pass. The last thing I would want to see is a bunch of radicals elected as delegates thanks to Jon Stryker's money and organization. We can't control his money, but we can control our own organization.

Update on Constitutional Convention (Con-con) debate

I posted here my strong disapproval for a Constitutional Convention which is being pushed by some influential and powerful individuals.

One major question and point raised by Chet Zarko was the campaign finance regulations and how delegate elections were affected by them. I quote my summary and Chet's quote (which is in italics)

In the Right Michigan post, I also missed one reason more than any other why it needs to be opposed. Outside Lansing and Oakland Politics blogger Chetly Zarko pointed it out. He said this.

I agree with RM here, with this addition, copied from my response to DL on his item.
The RMGN debacle is evidence of what bad can come from convention.

Special interests will own the delegates, particularly since the Dems are sitting on the reform Marty Knollenberg proposed in Oct. 2007 that I pointed out to him last year. The Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1977 forgot - understandably due to the rareness of conventions - to include delegates in reporting category defintions. And limit definitions.

Democrats - I'm calling Ward Connerly if there's a convention and there no law to say he can't give me one giant donation, which I'd never have to report. And I will run if there is a Con-Con, despite my hatred for it - largely to protect MCRI, but also to protect the initiative process, Headlee, and all that the people have earned in the last 40 years in at least marginally checking government excess.

Republicans - Stryker nightmare.

It's not individual candidates that evade the radar - its the potential for competing blocs of "sponsored" candidates. A Herculean battle would occur.

You think the raw costs of a convention in terms of administrative costs, staff, space, etc. are high. The political costs, and the subtle changes that can only ultimately favor the elite power interests since they are best positioned, are huge.

Fight both the Con RMGN and the Con of the Con-Con.


That is something I missed completely and is why it the word assume makes an ass of "u" and me. I assumed these are covered by the campaign finance laws. Nope. Billionire radical Jon Stryker can dump his billions into these races without anyone knowing. He can also call his sister out of state so she can dump her billions. All the Lansing and DC interests can dump their money, and George Soros himself could dump money in there, without any one of us knowing about that. All those that want to increase our taxes, earmark spending, grab our guns, criminalize certain speech (Colorado just did it), and do whatever they can think of can get their people in there.

If "Hell No" was an option on this constitutional convention, I would vote for it. I'll have to settle for "no." The prospects of what can happen at the constutional convention are about as frightening as facing the business end of a gun.

A friend of mine, who does not wish to be named, sent a letter to Secretary of State's legal team asking the following questions and wanted a declaratory ruling or if that wasn't possible, an advisory opinion known as an "interpretive statement." These were his questions.

Questions Presented For Declaratory Ruling
1.) Is the office of state constitutional delegate a “state elective office” under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act?
2.) Does the Michigan Campaign Finance Act cover candidates for constitutional convention delegate?
3.) What would the applicable contribution limit be to candidates for constitutional convention delegate?
4.) Are monies spent to support or oppose the election of a constitutional convention delegate “expenditures” and “contributions” under the Michigan Campaign Finance Act?

Constitutional convention delegates are not mentioned in the campaign finance law by statute. It was overlooked due to the rarity of conventions. There are outside technicalities that could impact, but we don't know unless the Sec of State or statute handles this.

Unfortunately, there was no declaratory ruling, or even an interpretive statement by the Secretary of State's office. The reason giving on the declaratory ruling was that my friend was not an "interested party." It is similar to the standing issue in court. They considered the request premature as there is no convention.

Here's the problem with that. The primary (if one) for delegate will happen three months after November and the general in the May after that (Elections are only four day a year - February and May are the only possible months). There is no time for a ruling then while everyone has their campaigns and is adjusting to the rules. It's better to know the rules ahead of time since the race for delegate will start immediately. I with the Sec of State issued at least a advisory opinion, if not a ruling.

Maybe someone should form a candidate committee for delegate in early 2010 in anticipation (or immediately if the legislature votes to put it on the ballot) and then ask for a ruling. The treasurer and candidate would then certainly be an interested party.

In the meantime, let's not have to deal with this hypothetical and vote no on any Con-con and it's possible unintended consequences of tax increases, bringing back race preferences, and God knows what else as literally everything would be on the table.

Michigan does not need a constitutional convention

Over on Right Michigan, there is a debate over whether Michigan should have a constitutional convention. Dennis Lennox, most known for being a thorn in the side of Gary Peters, eloquently makes a case that Michigan should have a constiutitonal convention and sited term limits and the snake oil "reform" proposal by the democrats for support of the con-con. Despite sharing his opinion of term limits and the snake oil ballot proposal by the democrats, I could not disagree with him more strongly for several reasons.

First off, too many elitist types will hijack a constitutional convention to get rid of our top safeguards against tax increases - the Headlee Amendment and Proposal A. If the constitution is opened up, that is fair game, as is our version of the 2nd Amendment (Article 1, sec 6) and a host of other issues.

The main pushers of this group pushing for the conbention is the current bunch at "Citizens for Michigan" lead by elitist democrats and liberal republicans. People like newspaper publisher and former UM trustee Phil Power (D), tax hike supporter Joe Schwarz and his buddy Harry Gast, Former AG Frank Kelley, Debbie Dingell, John Hertel, and Dan DeGrow. That gets my guard up if there ever was one. Most of those legislators were not exactly the epidomy of greatness while in Lansing. Anyone in Southeast Michigan who reads the Brighton Argus, Livingston County Press, and Observor and Eccentric Newspapers know the leanings of Mr. Power.

Back in late 2006, they had a study with several recommendations to change our constitution. Their recommendations are as follows.

1. Increase Term Limits

I do not have a problem with that. I oppose term limits at the state level. Thanks to term limits, we had our fee increases by Rick Johnson and company back in the end of 2004 - which I think is part of the reasons we lost the state house in 2006.

2. Make it harder for constitutional amendments to be passed here.

This was in response to the holy grail of the elite and the Richard Florida crowd - affirmative action. That's a large part of what spun this into action. Now the left is trying to gore our ox on the ballot initative. Maybe so, but that's not a good reason to throw this out.

3. - Eliminating the state Natural Resources and the Agriculture commissions and allowing the governor to appoint her entire cabinet

Why should Granholm have all the power? We need checks and balances in this state.

4. Allowing the governor to appoint members of the State Board of Education and the governing boards of the state's three largest universities, subject to advice and consent of the State Senate and a partisan balance. Currently, members of the State Board of Education, regents of the University of Michigan, trustees of Michigan State University and governors of Wayne State University are elected.

Again, why should Granholm have this power? While I'm not a fan of the convention nomination system and prefer old fashion primaries, I at least have SOME say with that system. I'd rather let people have the say as opposed to the elite. Maybe it's just my Jeffersonian roots. If this is going to be changed, let there be primaries.

5. Allow the governor to appoint Supreme Court Justices to a single 10-year term with partisan balance on the high court.

HELL NO! Dealbreaker right off the bat. Partisan balance does not exist and will not as long as there are appointments. The most powerful branch of government needs to be balanced by the people and not by politicians. While I do not agree with a convention nomination system, anything that takes away the checks and balances away from the people is damn wrong. If Stephen Reinhardt is appointed under this new proposal, I have no say whatsoever in opposing his disregard for the constitution. Under the current system, I can vote him out.

6. - Levy an additional statewide mill to fund school district building programs that over time would reduce bonding mills at the local level

A tax increase. No way.

7. Eliminate super-majority voting requirements spelled out in the constitution. Banking code amendments were one example of voting requirements.

Why? Why was there a supermajority in the first place?

8. - Eliminate restrictions on local taxation, particularly for transportation

No. I remember the days of the runaway millages back in the late 80's. People were taxed out of their homes. We need fiscal responsibility instead and less taxes. I don't have Phil Power's money.

9. - Eliminate the Headlee rollback provision in Article IX, Section 31

That is the number one goal of the leftists who want to have a constitutional convention. Eliminate the barriers so our taxes go up.

10. Alter language regarding local elected official recalls so that the only reason for recall would be malfeasance or misfeasance

The democrats are still mad about losing the state senate after the 1983 tax increase. Tax increases are a damn good reason for a recall. It's another check and balance the leftists and the elitists want to take away from us since they believe they know better.

11. Allow the governor the option of a "pocket-veto"

We do not need to give the executive any more powers. We have the veto and override. That's good enough.

There's a reason why we do not have a lot of constitutional conventions. People are rightly suspicious when it comes to changing it. I really would not want to see the elimination of Headlee or the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, ex post facto laws, or tax safeguards in this state. They were enacted for a good reason. Government abused its power, and people moved to limit it. With a constitutional convention, all these safeguards are on the table to be removed. That is unacceptable.

I will say this. If there will be a constitutional convention, I will run for constitutional delegate and will knock on 15,000+ doors and try and raise $50,000+ if I have to win that delegate spot in an election. Freedom will be attacked, and it must be defended with absolute vigilance.

In the Right Michigan post, I also missed one reason more than any other why it needs to be opposed. Outside Lansing and Oakland Politics blogger Chetly Zarko pointed it out. He said this.

I agree with RM here, with this addition, copied from my response to DL on his item.
The RMGN debacle is evidence of what bad can come from convention.

Special interests will own the delegates, particularly since the Dems are sitting on the reform Marty Knollenberg proposed in Oct. 2007 that I pointed out to him last year. The Michigan Campaign Finance Act of 1977 forgot - understandably due to the rareness of conventions - to include delegates in reporting category defintions. And limit definitions.

Democrats - I'm calling Ward Connerly if there's a convention and there no law to say he can't give me one giant donation, which I'd never have to report. And I will run if there is a Con-Con, despite my hatred for it - largely to protect MCRI, but also to protect the initiative process, Headlee, and all that the people have earned in the last 40 years in at least marginally checking government excess.

Republicans - Stryker nightmare.

It's not individual candidates that evade the radar - its the potential for competing blocs of "sponsored" candidates. A Herculean battle would occur.

You think the raw costs of a convention in terms of administrative costs, staff, space, etc. are high. The political costs, and the subtle changes that can only ultimately favor the elite power interests since they are best positioned, are huge.

Fight both the Con RMGN and the Con of the Con-Con.

That is something I missed completely and is why it the word assume makes an ass of "u" and me. I assumed these are covered by the campaign finance laws. Nope. Billionire radical Jon Stryker can dump his billions into these races without anyone knowing. He can also call his sister out of state so she can dump her billions. All the Lansing and DC interests can dump their money, and George Soros himself could dump money in there, without any one of us knowing about that. All those that want to increase our taxes, earmark spending, grab our guns, criminalize certain speech (Colorado just did it), and do whatever they can think of can get their people in there.

If "Hell No" was an option on this constitutional convention, I would vote for it. I'll have to settle for "no." The prospects of what can happen at the constutional convention are about as frightening as facing the business end of a gun.

US Supreme Court upholds ban on partial birth abortion

This one was closely watched. From Reuters

A closely divided U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld for the first time a nationwide ban on a specific abortion procedure, a ruling critics denounced as undermining 30 years of precedent protecting women's health.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act that President George W. Bush signed into law in 2003 after its approval by the Republican-led U.S. Congress does not violate a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

The ruling could open the door to further abortion restrictions and it came in the first full term of Bush's two Supreme Court appointees, signaling a possible new direction on a divisive social issue that could continue long after Bush leaves office.

ADVERTISEMENT (article continues below)

The decision by the conservative majority that included both of Bush's appointees marked the first federal ban on an abortion procedure to be upheld since the court's landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that women have a basic constitutional right to abortion.

The majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy rejected the argument the law must be struck down because it imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion, that it was too vague or broad and it failed to provide an exception for abortions to protect the health of a pregnant woman.

"The government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life," Kennedy wrote in the 39-page opinion. He said the law would reduce the number of late-term abortions.

I haven't read the decision yet and will refrain comment on this, but I will say that Planned Parenthood v Casey (the worst of the them all), Doe v Bolton, and Roe V Wade all need to get overturned.

I do wish that this was simply a state level ban, and not federal however due to 10th Amendment concerns. Abortion issues should be decided at the state level. (And each state should ban it)

Q&A in Class with Judge Bork

During this week in class, Judge Robert Bork was one of the lecturers in the Moral Foundations of the Law class.

Friday's class is a Q&A session where the students are able to ask questions to Judge Bork. One of the questions were as follows:

Student Question - Who is the most dangerous person threatening the Constitution in America? - Who is the best person in terms of National Security? (Parapharasing the second part)

Judge Bork responded ""The most dangerous person in terms of the constitution is Senator McCain"" and then stated that the strongest protector of national security is Senator McCain and referred to the McCain/Feingold prior restraint of the constitution, specificly mentioned the 30 day and 60 day references to political ads. He referred to the war on national security with McCain.

-----------------------
From a personal staindpoint, I'm not sure if Mr. McCain is the most dangerous compared to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or even Rudolph Giuliani. However, Mr. McCain is no friend of the 1st amendment, and is not a real friend of the 2nd Amendment either.

DC Gun Ban Unconstitutional - Second Amendment Victory in Washington D.C.!!!!

UPDATE - My mistake. Griffith was GW Bush appointee. Henderson was GHWB appointee.

Big news out of the US Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. Drudge Report has the PDF file on it.

Thumbs up for the attorneys on a big victory. Alan Gura in arguements and Robert A. Levy and Clark M. Neily, III on the briefs.

The following AG's or their office Supported us. Let's remember that election time. Mike Cox in particular came through for gun owners once again.

Greg Abbott, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office
of State of Texas, R. Ted Cruz, Solicitor General, Troy King,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of State of
Alabama, Mike Beebe, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Arkansas, John W. Suthers, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Colorado,
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Florida, Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Georgia,
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of
the State of Michigan, Mike Hatch, Attorney General, Attorney
General’s Office of the State of Minnesota, Jon Bruning,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of
Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General, Attorney
General’s Office of the State of North Dakota, Jim Petro,
Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of
Ohio, Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of the State of Utah, and Patrick J. Crank, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Wyoming,
were on the brief for amici curiae States of Texas, et. al. in
support of appellants.

Amicus briefs:
Second Amendment Foundation
Congress of Racial Equality
NRA
ACRU

For the other side:

Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, Office of Attorney General
for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellees.
With him on the brief were Robert J. Spagnoletti, Attorney
General, Edward E. Schwab, Deputy Solicitor General, and Lutz
Alexander Prager, Assistant Attorney General.

Ernest McGill, pro se, was on the brief for amicus curiae
Ernest McGill in support of appellees.
Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General, Attorney General’s
Office of Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Glenn S. Kaplan,
Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence G. Walden, Attorney
General, Attorney General’s Office of the State of Idaho, J.
Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Attorney General’s Office
of the State of Maryland, Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General,
Attorney General’s Office of the State of New Jersey, were on
the brief for amici curiae Commonwealth of Massachusetts, et
al. in support of appellees. John Hogrogian, Attorney,
Corporation Counsel's Office of City of New York, and Benna
R. Solomon, Attorney, Corporation Counsel of the City of
Chicago, entered appearances.
Andrew L. Frey, David M. Gossett, Danny Y. Chou, Deputy
City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney of the City and
County of San Francisco, and John A. Valentine, were on the
brief for amici curiae The Brady Center to Prevent Gun
Violence, et al. in support of appellees. Eric J. Mogilnicki
entered an appearance.

I have one question. How the hell can the AG for IDAHO argue for the DC gun ban. I hope 2a groups remember him and help the voters send him home for his opposition to freedom.

UPDATE - I found that Idaho's AG withdrew their brief awhile back.

Judges Laurence Silberman wrote the court's opinion, joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. The decision was from the "Individual Rights" model of the 2nd Amendment. It is a very well written opinion, throughly backed up with facts, original intent, and case law precident. Judge Karen Henderson dissented on two grouds, the "Collective Right" model and on the fact DC is not a state. Judge Silberman was a Reagan appointee. Judge Griffith was a George W Bush nominee. Judge Henderson was a George HW Bush appointee.

SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge: Appellants contest the
district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that the
District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate their Second
Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment
(“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall
not be infringed”) does not bestow any rights on individuals
except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized
militia such as today’s National Guard. We reverse.

This case may soon go to the Supreme Court, or it could be heard by a full panel of the DC Circuit. It is far from over, but it is a good step forward for freedom.