Protocol for holding a Constitutional Convention is provided for by Article 19, subsection 2 of the New York State Constitution. Specifically, it states that:
<br><br>
<i>...and in case a majority of the electors voting thereon shall decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, the electors of every senate district of the state, as then organized, shall elect three delegates at the next ensuing general election, and the electors of the state voting at the same election shall elect fifteen delegates-at-large.</i>
.
What is the purpose for drafting a new New York State Constitution? Do you have a legitimate reason? This may be one of those careful what you wish for moments that ends up doing somethig far removed from it's original intention.
Just imagine the piles of cash flowing into such a process. I'm less concerned about whether the delegates are elected or party officials than I am with the unlimited and anonymous funds that will flow in, courtesy of the Citizens United decision. Koch Brothers anyone?
Bad, bad idea... A constitutional convention would allow for a relatively small yet vocal minority to ram their agenda through.
- Think muslims are trying to take over the world? Insert an "anti-sharia" clause.
- Think christianity ought to be prevelant? Insert a "ten commandments posted on all state buildings" clause.
(We'll ignore the fact that the two items above are either already covered or not allowed by the U.S. Constitution, because, quite frankly, the zealots who push these types of things usually do ignore the U.S. Constitution.)
Other things radicals may wish to push through - no income tax (causing taxes to become more regressive), no same-sex marriage (eroding rights)...
Voting on new amendments at least allows time to think about consequences, and for folks to be informed (in theory, at least). And as @James mentioned above - the money pouring in would make the whole thing a perversion of democracy.
Tim, I hear what you're saying, but worst case scenario theories aren't a reason to avoid action. Any new constitution would have to be ratified by New Yorkers. If it doesn't pass state wide, it never goes into effect. I think Three or four NY constitutions have been voted down in our history and maybe 4 or 5 have passed.
New Yorkers are provincial enough to slap down the crazies, but fed up enough to make some necessary changes. I'll use the various State Authorities again as an example. The Authorities have long been a favor and patronage job fair for political cronies. They need to be eliminated and the jobs that are actually relevant need to be reassigned to the appropriate Department.
Tim - There would be an election for delegates to the convention, I doubt that people of that ideology would get elected to said convention in massive enough numbers to institute those kinds of ideas into a new constitution.
Howard - Why not local elected officials? I doubt that state legislators (or party officials) would be able to run for convention delegate without cries of 'conflict of interest', but I would hope that officials elected on the local level would be delegates. They could, with their expertise in local government, help write a constitution that does local municipalities much better justice. I'd like to see a wide spectrum of people.
I'm not sure it would be legal to bar sitting elected officials from being delegates. Ostensibly, the delegates would be chosen in an open election so...
The only reason I can think of is to legalize off reservation casinos. They want table games and games of chance which are currently banned by the State.
Howard - They are the people who have on the ground experience running local municipalities, I want them there to stick up for local governments......and just because someone is an 'independent' on paper does not mean that they will not have political views leaning one way or another or be beholden to special interests. Again, I want to see a broad cross-section of the state, not just people who agree with me.
There may not have been parties at the original constitutional convention, but there certainly were federalists and anti-federalists, and each had their own backing from different well known individuals.
Political parties are not the devil, they exist because people have different political sensibilities and want to be in a group with people who think like them. Politicians who are beholden to powerful legislative leaders and lack courage are the problem.....and that would exist without political parties.
Dan; "Political parties are not the devil..." They did not begin that way, but in their current state....Yes, they are.
The same old tired ideas and procedures are not working, New blood and a totally new way of looking at the issues is desperately needed at every level of government
Dan, you can't have it both ways, saying "political parties are not the devil" and then say "Politicians who are beholden to powerful legislative leaders and lack courage are the problem"
Politicians beholden to legislative leaders is the pure definition of party politics.
At a national and state level, both Republicans and Democrats are dedicated to only one thing: The perpetuation of the party. And God help you if you think the American people should come first.
Party and Faction have become everything George Washington argued against.
The Federalist/anti-federalist comparison just doesn't hold. Those were people rallied around particular ideologies, not people trying to perpetuate a political party for the mere sake of power and wealth.
Yes and the voters should get
Yes and the voters should get to vote for the delegates.
And delegates can't be an
And delegates can't be an elected official at any level or hold a position of leadership in any established political party.
Protocol for holding a
Protocol for holding a Constitutional Convention is provided for by Article 19, subsection 2 of the New York State Constitution. Specifically, it states that:
<br><br>
<i>...and in case a majority of the electors voting thereon shall decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, the electors of every senate district of the state, as then organized, shall elect three delegates at the next ensuing general election, and the electors of the state voting at the same election shall elect fifteen delegates-at-large.</i>
.
What is the purpose for
What is the purpose for drafting a new New York State Constitution? Do you have a legitimate reason? This may be one of those careful what you wish for moments that ends up doing somethig far removed from it's original intention.
Just imagine the piles of
Just imagine the piles of cash flowing into such a process. I'm less concerned about whether the delegates are elected or party officials than I am with the unlimited and anonymous funds that will flow in, courtesy of the Citizens United decision. Koch Brothers anyone?
Bad, bad idea... A
Bad, bad idea... A constitutional convention would allow for a relatively small yet vocal minority to ram their agenda through.
- Think muslims are trying to take over the world? Insert an "anti-sharia" clause.
- Think christianity ought to be prevelant? Insert a "ten commandments posted on all state buildings" clause.
(We'll ignore the fact that the two items above are either already covered or not allowed by the U.S. Constitution, because, quite frankly, the zealots who push these types of things usually do ignore the U.S. Constitution.)
Other things radicals may wish to push through - no income tax (causing taxes to become more regressive), no same-sex marriage (eroding rights)...
Voting on new amendments at least allows time to think about consequences, and for folks to be informed (in theory, at least). And as @James mentioned above - the money pouring in would make the whole thing a perversion of democracy.
Tim, I hear what you're
Tim, I hear what you're saying, but worst case scenario theories aren't a reason to avoid action. Any new constitution would have to be ratified by New Yorkers. If it doesn't pass state wide, it never goes into effect. I think Three or four NY constitutions have been voted down in our history and maybe 4 or 5 have passed.
New Yorkers are provincial enough to slap down the crazies, but fed up enough to make some necessary changes. I'll use the various State Authorities again as an example. The Authorities have long been a favor and patronage job fair for political cronies. They need to be eliminated and the jobs that are actually relevant need to be reassigned to the appropriate Department.
Tim - There would be an
Tim - There would be an election for delegates to the convention, I doubt that people of that ideology would get elected to said convention in massive enough numbers to institute those kinds of ideas into a new constitution.
Howard - Why not local elected officials? I doubt that state legislators (or party officials) would be able to run for convention delegate without cries of 'conflict of interest', but I would hope that officials elected on the local level would be delegates. They could, with their expertise in local government, help write a constitution that does local municipalities much better justice. I'd like to see a wide spectrum of people.
I'm not sure it would be
I'm not sure it would be legal to bar sitting elected officials from being delegates. Ostensibly, the delegates would be chosen in an open election so...
Dan, local electeds, as nice
Dan, local electeds, as nice as they are, still tend to be party loyalists. I want to see a constitution drafted by independents.
You're still going to get
You're still going to get party loyalists, Howard. Who do you think is going to be balloting the candidates for Delegate?
The only reason I can think
The only reason I can think of is to legalize off reservation casinos. They want table games and games of chance which are currently banned by the State.
Well, fine then let's just
Well, fine then let's just nothing. The way things are is working just fine.
Howard - They are the people
Howard - They are the people who have on the ground experience running local municipalities, I want them there to stick up for local governments......and just because someone is an 'independent' on paper does not mean that they will not have political views leaning one way or another or be beholden to special interests. Again, I want to see a broad cross-section of the state, not just people who agree with me.
There may not have been parties at the original constitutional convention, but there certainly were federalists and anti-federalists, and each had their own backing from different well known individuals.
Political parties are not the devil, they exist because people have different political sensibilities and want to be in a group with people who think like them. Politicians who are beholden to powerful legislative leaders and lack courage are the problem.....and that would exist without political parties.
Dan; "Political parties are
Dan; "Political parties are not the devil..." They did not begin that way, but in their current state....Yes, they are.
The same old tired ideas and procedures are not working, New blood and a totally new way of looking at the issues is desperately needed at every level of government
Dan, you can't have it both
Dan, you can't have it both ways, saying "political parties are not the devil" and then say "Politicians who are beholden to powerful legislative leaders and lack courage are the problem"
Politicians beholden to legislative leaders is the pure definition of party politics.
At a national and state level, both Republicans and Democrats are dedicated to only one thing: The perpetuation of the party. And God help you if you think the American people should come first.
Party and Faction have become everything George Washington argued against.
The Federalist/anti-federalist comparison just doesn't hold. Those were people rallied around particular ideologies, not people trying to perpetuate a political party for the mere sake of power and wealth.