The Cost of a New State Constitution
Whether residents approve a constitutional convention on this November's ballot may come down to how much it would cost to rewrite the state constitution.
But there is a disagreement over just how much it would cost.
Bill Ballenger, publisher of Inside Michigan Politics, cited the often-used figure of $45 million as one reason against going the route of a constitutional convention.
"It is going to cost a lot of money," Ballenger said. "That will be one of the big arguments against it. These groups opposed to it will use that argument: 'Here we are in a time of fiscal crisis.'"
Whether the voters agree to change the state's constitution could come down to how much it costs, if you believe a recent poll.
The EPIC-MRA statewide poll in February found that 43 percent said they would vote yes to have a delegation draft a revision of the state constitution. But when told that it would cost $45 million, only 20 percent of those polled said yes.
Joe Carrasco, spokesman for the Senate Fiscal Agency, confirmed that they gave the $45 million figure to some state politicians who had asked for an estimate. Carrasco said that cost was based on the cost of the 1962 Constitutional Convention, adjusted for inflation.
Carrasco confirmed that the 1962 cost was $2 million, which covered the salaries for convention participants, rent, equipment, supplies and photos, according to a 2006 Legislative Service Bureau legislative brief.
According to the Consumer Price Index calculator provided by the U.S. federal government's Bureau of Labor Statistics, that adds up to $14.4 million today.
The Senate Fiscal Agency then adds the Secretary of State's estimate for what a state-wide election would cost — $9 million to $10 million each. The agency assumes that there would be three of these state-wide elections: a primary and then a general election to select convention delegates, and then another vote to approve the proposed new constitution that the delegates draft.
But Henry Woloson of Energize Michigan — a group in favor of reworking the state constitution — said it could be done for a much lower price.
He points to the same 2006 Legislative Service Bureau brief, which states, "a convention of similar length and scope today could cost around $30 million, including election costs."
"I would recommend budgeting $10 million of state funds for the operation of the Constitutional Convention," Woloson wrote in an e-mail. "The delegates would have to live within that budget. What is wrong with that? Funding from foundations and private sources could also be aggressively pursued. The cost of the elections would be extra and I defer to the people who handle elections to provide that figure. But, if I were elected as one of the 148 delegates, I would strongly recommend saving the cost of one election by having any proposed changes be placed on the August, 2012 primary ballot to save costs. This is an exceptional opportunity to demonstrate that government can be operated efficiently on a set budget."
Con-con: Not the Answer! - Part 2
In this one, my point (by analogy) is that having the right words on paper does not guarantee the result!
Let's look at the federal example where we have a beautifully worded, well-thought-out document in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights:
Are any important parts of it still honored as intended by the founders? Let's see ...
Do we have honest money coined as per Article I., section 8?
(And the fact that we do not, thanks to the Federal Reserve and FDR as well as LBJ and Nixon, means that the States can't follow Article I., section 10, "No state shall ... make any thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts...." )
If the United States fulfilled its responsibility to coin lawful money exclusive of any debased coinage or fraudulent tender, then the states could properly disallow [fiat/fiduciary/fake] paper money and we would not be faced with a mountain of 'national debt' and the whole Ponzi-scheme lifestyle of which we have become victims. Then the mere mortals who pose as presidents and congress-people could not simply call into being a "bailout" via inflationary debt instrument to gain credibility among the gullible.
In short, if we had honest money (and no other), it would be possible to have a moral society. As it is, we live among the smoke and mirrors of a deceitful debt economy, and people who want to work cannot find their niche b/c the entrepreneurs who could, in the real world, utilize their talents and efforts, have been relegated to third-world countries by their own government, forced to other shores by taxation and regulation to say nothing of federally aided and abetted union domination and extortion.
______________________________________________
Does the federal government "[G]uarantee to every state ... a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them from invasion" as in Article IV., section 4?
Ask Arizona! (Or Texas, or any other state, along the border or not!)
Does Congress exercise its responsibility with regard to deciding which appellate cases the Supreme Court may hear as charged in Article III, section 2, paragraph 2, sentence 2, "...with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"?
Did any of our pro-life Congresses just up and say to the Supreme Court, "Hey wait a minute! You had no right to rule on that. Just let the states have their own laws back"?
And, "While you're at it, dig a hole for all those cases that have restricted the free exercise. You're out of line on your interpretation of the First Amendment."
And, by the way, we can back up that statement from our own state constitutions and from the only federal founding document that dealt with what should go on in schools or constitute education!
See Michigan Constitution Article VIII., section 1, "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
Also see Northwest Ordinance of 1787 for the same wording, along with other pertinent information on the responsibilities of states.
Think of the immensity of the power given to Congress to check the Supreme Court that is enunciated in those few words, "...with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make"!
Yes, it takes more than words on paper: It takes courage and knowledge, a fire in the hearts and minds of the people. Let's get on with that before we trust a bunch of popular contestants to mess with our constitution!
Con-con: Not the Answer! - Part 1
Why do we assume that we'll get a better document from elected delegates chosen by the same people who elected (or allowed the election of) Gov. Granholm and B.H. Obama?
With elected representatives who vote overwhelmingly to exempt prosecutors (and thereby their jurisdictions) from paying for an appeal while still saddling defendants (and their dependents) with those charges, what makes us think that as a people we have any sense of fairness left?
Why is it fair for the very people who are (to borrow from the Declaration of Independence) setting up "Swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance" to get off scot free, while ordinary folks suffer not only under outrageous taxes, but then have to defend against a multiplicity of statutes made under the color of law?
Are we so naive as to think all the ACORN spinoffs, union bosses, and ambitious predators of the child-abuse industry, and others are just going to sit this one out?
If the problem is the non-adherence to an Article or section of the Michigan Constitution, then let's go after the guilty parties, not throw out the document!
For example, Article VIII., section 9, requires that all fines and penalties go to public libraries and county law libraries, so why are we allowing half of the fines to go to the benefit of the judges who impose them? Besides violating the Michigan Constitution, this appears on the face of it to be a conflict of interest for judges ruling on guilt and then lining their pensions or other benefits with the resulting fines!
To the extent that there are real problems with the Michigan Constitution, itself, (rather than merely the ignoring or willful violation of it), let's bring them up and discuss them individually, and if we then conclude there is a genuine need for a particular change, let's do the initiative amendment thing on an article-by-article or section-by-section basis as needed?
Two elections, not three
Yes, a constitutional convention would require two statewide elections that would not have been held otherwise: a special primary and a special general election for delegates.
But not THREE. The constitution could be voted on at the next even-year general election in 2012, which will be held whether or not there is a convention. Or, failing that, in 2014. There is no need and no requirement to have a separate standalone election for the people to adopt or reject the proposed new constitution.
So $10 million of the supposed cost estimate is simply bogus.
In any case, the cost of the convention would be repaid many times over, if it succeeds at reforming our currently dysfunctional state government.
rogers13
Costs and concerns about the agendae of elected delegates are the same arguments that were used against the Constitutional Convention question in 1962. Even if our Constitution were re-written in a manner than suited only a small segment of Michigan's population, it must first be approved by the convention delegates and then by the citizens.
What we cannot afford is to let Lansing continue its current behaviors that have turned Michigan into a welfare state that drives each of us further into debt every year. Lansing is out of control and out of answers. This is our opportunity to do something about it.
A part-time legislature is a good start. How likely do you think it is that the legislature will consider such a move? Or, do you think they just might be more interested in protecting their nearly $80,000 salaries plus perks and benefits?
Lansing follows Washington's lead.....spend, spend, spend. The only answer that keeps coming back at those of us who pay the freight is more taxes, more fees, more, more, more.......
No to Michigan Constitutional Convention
Not only am I concerned about the costs of a Con-Con, but I am also concerned about who will be picked or nomiinated to sit on a Con-Con committee. Although I can understand Henry Woloson of Energize Michigan wanting to improve the basic rights of individuals -- his agenda is not the same as the agenda of many others who are scheming to increase the power and control of government over the people.