Constitutional Convention Urged

[Tony]

NW Corner wrote:

"Earlier this week, members of the Connecticut AFL-CIO labor organization voted for a resolution opposing a constitutional convention. Lori Pelletier, the secretary-treasurer, said union members believe ballot initiatives could lead to laws passed by a public that's been swayed by well-financed, out-of-state special interest groups and costly media campaigns."
Psst, Ms. Pelletier:
The AFL-CIO is a well-financed, in-state and out-of-state special interest group. And they run their own costly media campaigns.
VOTE YES, PEOPLE!!!!!

Thanks for that out of state opinion. Stay in NY and worry about what your own Governor does

[Amanda]

The AFL/CIO are fighting to eliminate secret ballots. They want to know who votes for what. And we all know what happens to union members who don't vote the union line.

[I Am A Bar Card]

Interested Observer wrote:

I agree with the spirit of this proposal - people should have a greater say in their government. And I think the convention should go forward.
But, in the same spirit, the convention itself needs to be watched - and participated in - with care. Let's all be careful about how we change the constitution - it's a double edged sword.
Constitutional changes are also hard to undo. If we're going to do this, we should go slow and make sure of all implications of the changes we want to make; otherwise, we may have to live with our mistakes a long time.

No one understands that the first thing they will want to change is Connecticut's Declaration of Rights. They already ignore your rights.

Here is a website to the Connecticut Constitution. I can no longer find it on the State website. Go figure.

http://www.megalaw.com/ct/ctconstitution.php

And.. CT Declaration of Rights.

http://www.megalaw.com/ct/ctconst/ctc_1.php

[Susan Kniep]

Susan Kniep, President
The Federation of Connecticut Taxpayer Organizations
Website: http://ctact.org/
email: [e-mail]

Why You Should Vote YES on Nov 4 for a State Constitutional Convention

It is to the advantage of both conservatives and liberals to lobby for the passage of this referendum question. Upon its passage, Connecticut residents should then work for the right of Statewide Initiative and Referendum (I&R). Incorporation of this right within Connecticut’s Constitution will give all Connecticut citizens greater control of their state government. In addition, Statewide I&R will promote civic engagement, and, in turn, rejuvenate the passion in Connecticut voters of renewed hope for a government of, for and by the citizens of our State. The Statewide I&R process is similar to that on a local level. Citizens would develop an issue, collect signatures on a petition and put the issue before voters at a referendum statewide.

Today, twenty-seven (27) States have some form of Statewide Initiative and Referendum. They range from citizens being allowed to petition to pass state laws they write and/or suspend a law passed by their state legislature and/or propose an amendment to the State’s constitution. As we debate the issue in 2008 of whether a Constitutional Convention would be right for Connecticut, we need to reflect on the limitations we now have to effectuate change in our State government. In the absence of Statewide Initiative and Referendum, our only recourse rests in our ability to garner the interests of our State representatives. Yet, there has been a disconnect throughout our country between politicians and the public they represent. The breeding ground of the disenfranchised public has been cultivated with seeds of distrust and perceived indifference by those elected to serve us. Many believe that the drive for personal power by politicians trumps public service, as elections and issues are influenced by special interests. This year’s lackluster session of Connecticut’s general assembly left many important issues on the table. and 59 state assembly seats will go unchallenged. Voter participation is also on the decline. Of course, this year may be different. The economy, the war, the subprime debacle, escalating gasoline and oil prices along with rising property taxes are either driving families from their homes through foreclosure or bankruptcy or at minimum affecting their quality of life. Families are forced to choose between the necessities of food, heat, or gasoline to get them to their jobs. That is, of course, unless they are already in the unemployment line, with over 2,700 businesses closing in Connecticut in the first three months of this year.

What is evident as we followed the Democrat primary is the public’s desperate desire for change as many believe money, power and influence prevail over the interests of the average American family. Americans today want greater control over their government and their public officials, and some are working hard to assume that control, as 27 states now have Statewide Initiative and Referendum.

The common thread of those who have championed this cause, and who today continue the crusade for Statewide Initiative and Referendum, have been the following:

• To Reverse the concentration of government power,
• To neutralize the power of special interests,
• To increase public understanding of issues,
• To stimulate public involvement in the political process and improve voter turnout,
• To make government more responsive.

To learn more about Initiative and Referendum visit the following website: http://www.iandrinstitute.org/

[FAV]

Brava Susan Kniep!

[NW Corner]

Tony wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for that out of state opinion. Stay in NY and worry about what your own Governor does

I live in CT and pay taxes here too. My ISP location through Optimum Online is in NY. Smarten up.

[Francis Knize]

Dear fellow citizens of Conn. Please let me help explain why we need a constitutional convention. For two years I submitted a bill to the House Judiciary Committee in Connecticut. Now it just so happens lawyers inhabit all three branches of government; the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branch. In a way , this represents a conflict of interest according to the dictas of the Constitution, and is more likely than not repugnant to the Constitution and is an illegal form of control by a nobility.
The Bill sought to do something positive with much-needed oversight mechanisms - implanting of an Inspector General for the Judiciary with Grand Jury Powers: judges who are hired to enforce the law should not so readily break or deny the law. This bill would put judges on notice to follow the law, and not ignore briefs that clearly state what laws are being broken. I speak from experience.
But Representative Lawlor and Senator McDonald did everything they could to quash the bill, even though it was sponsored by Rep. Art O'Neil.
Why they did this is obvious: for their own partisan interest to protect the lawyer/judge absolute control the judiciary exercises for itself.
Now, you must also remember we are a nation of people who form a government of, for, and by ourselves and there should be no government without the consent of We The People. But our judges are judging the judges, and it is rare a judge is held accountable for lawlessness.
I think it would be a good idea if the people were to have powers for a ballot initiative to finally, at long last BALANCE the scales against the undo weight and influence of lawyer control of our government. One solution is to NOT vote for lawyers. But the fact that a Constitutional Convention will give us people power back to get those lawyer Chairs of the Judiciary Committee (Lawlor and McDonald) to back off from taking away what the public wants: accountability and transparency of our public officials.

[Francis Knize]

Dear fellow citizens of Conn. Please let me help explain why we need a constitutional convention. For two years I submitted a bill to the House Judiciary Committee in Connecticut. Now it just so happens lawyers inhabit all three branches of government; the legislature, the executive, and the judicial branch. In a way , this represents a conflict of interest according to the dictas of the Constitution, and is more likely than not repugnant to the Constitution and is an illegal form of control by a nobility.

The Bill sought to do something positive with much-needed oversight mechanisms - implanting of an Inspector General for the Judiciary with Grand Jury Powers: judges who are hired to enforce the law should not so readily break or deny the law. This bill would put judges on notice to follow the law, and not ignore briefs that clearly state what laws are being broken. I speak from experience.

But Representative Lawlor and Senator McDonald did everything they could to quash the bill, even though it was sponsored by Rep. Art O'Neil.

Why they did this is obvious: for their own partisan interest to protect the lawyer/judge absolute control the judiciary exercises for itself.

Now, you must also remember we are a nation of people who form a government of, for, and by ourselves and there should be no government without the consent of We The People. But our judges are judging the judges, and it is rare a judge is held accountable for lawlessness.

I think it would be a good idea if the people were to have powers for a ballot initiative to finally, at long last BALANCE the scales against the undo weight and influence of lawyer control of our government. One solution is to NOT vote for lawyers. But the fact that a Constitutional Convention will give us people power back to get those lawyer Chairs of the Judiciary Committee (Lawlor and McDonald) to back off from taking away what the public wants: accountability and transparency of our public officials.

[Nimrod]

Have you all been keeping up with the latest on the "Con Con,"--that at least 3 big anti groups have donated BIG BUCKS to try to defeat this opportunity in November?

For more info, and a link to an AP article---see the blog at:

www.ctfamily.org

[Tania]

Nimrod wrote:

Have you all been keeping up with the latest on the "Con Con,"--that at least 3 big anti groups have donated BIG BUCKS to try to defeat this opportunity in November?
For more info, and a link to an AP article---see the blog at:
www.ctfamily.org

This is no surprise. The unions and entrenched political establishment don't want the public anywhere near their way of doing business. The fear is ballot question access by the voters will lead to term limits, tax caps, 3 strikes, etc.

This effort by the anti's will reach new, historic levels of scare tactics, innuendo, and NEGATIVE campaigning, in general. The YES campaign will be huge by Election Day and the powerful special interests who oppose it will spend millions to bombard the public. Watch!!!

[Nimrod]

Tania wrote:

<quoted text>... The YES campaign will be huge by Election Day and the powerful special interests who oppose it will spend millions to bombard the public. Watch!!!

I hope you are right, Tania, about the "YES campaign will be huge by Election Day!" The presidential race has been reenergized by the entry of Sarah Palin into the equation.

I wonder if Alaska is one of those 31 states that have a form of "Direct Initiative" by citizens available to them--more western states do have it.

Anyway, Sarah Palin is certainly a stellar example of citizen involvement--going from PTA, to mayor, crushing waste and corruption along the way--resulting in her election as Governor of Alaska.

We nutmeggers certainly NEED a way to have more input into our governance. The CON CON, and a "Direct Initiative" resulting from that convention, are our ONLY CHANCE.

Please, everyone spread the word to vote YES for the "CON CON!"

[Nimrod]

Another thing---have you ever noticed, in this state, that the MEDIA and our predominantly left-leaning elected representatives in Hartford are very often in lockstep on important issues?

They seem to believe that THEY have all the *wisdom* to decide--especially SOCIAL issues--for us! That we, as citizens, should just sit back and LISTEN to them, maybe have some TOKEN input in a public hearing, and then meekly accept the decisions of liberal senators and assemblymen as being RIGHT--even though those legislative bills have been often BOUGHT and paid for by lobbyists of activist groups!

[Nimrod]

One last thing--have people noticed how the liberal lockstep mentality prevalent in our state may even be infecting our state Supreme Court Justices?

It seems highly SUSPICIOUS to me that in over FIFTEEN MONTHS, well over a YEAR, our Supreme Court has not come out with a ruling in the appealed Kerrigan v. Connecticut case. Oral arguments in this case were heard in MAY of LAST YEAR!!

Good grief! The Supreme Court of California had SEVERAL similar cases, which they combined into one, and came out with their ruling in LESS THAN SIX MONTHS!

Does anyone else suspect that our state's Supreme Court Justices are DELAYING their ruling in the Kerrigan case, for POLITICAL REASONS??

[jesse]

Nimrod wrote:

<quoted text>
I hope you are right, Tania, about the "YES campaign will be huge by Election Day!" The presidential race has been reenergized by the entry of Sarah Palin into the equation.
I wonder if Alaska is one of those 31 states that have a form of "Direct Initiative" by citizens available to them--more western states do have it.
Anyway, Sarah Palin is certainly a stellar example of citizen involvement--going from PTA, to mayor, crushing waste and corruption along the way--resulting in her election as Governor of Alaska.
We nutmeggers certainly NEED a way to have more input into our governance. The CON CON, and a "Direct Initiative" resulting from that convention, are our ONLY CHANCE.
Please, everyone spread the word to vote YES for the "CON CON!"

Alaska is a direct democracy state-they have popular referendum, ballot initiative, AND recall. No surprise!! Ct. is run by the "blue elite", which is comprised of the political establishment, unions, media, lobbyists, all who oppose CONCON.

[jesse]

Nimrod wrote:

One last thing--have people noticed how the liberal lockstep mentality prevalent in our state may even be infecting our state Supreme Court Justices?
It seems highly SUSPICIOUS to me that in over FIFTEEN MONTHS, well over a YEAR, our Supreme Court has not come out with a ruling in the appealed Kerrigan v. Connecticut case. Oral arguments in this case were heard in MAY of LAST YEAR!!
Good grief! The Supreme Court of California had SEVERAL similar cases, which they combined into one, and came out with their ruling in LESS THAN SIX MONTHS!
Does anyone else suspect that our state's Supreme Court Justices are DELAYING their ruling in the Kerrigan case, for POLITICAL REASONS??

I believe they're "holding" the decision until after November 4. They don't want to rile the masses. Palmer and his liberal cohorts have had this decision in the can for months. Ask Mike Lawlor, who has exerted tremendous influence in Supreme Court politics.

[jesse]

Nimrod wrote:

Another thing---have you ever noticed, in this state, that the MEDIA and our predominantly left-leaning elected representatives in Hartford are very often in lockstep on important issues?
They seem to believe that THEY have all the *wisdom* to decide--especially SOCIAL issues--for us! That we, as citizens, should just sit back and LISTEN to them, maybe have some TOKEN input in a public hearing, and then meekly accept the decisions of liberal senators and assemblymen as being RIGHT--even though those legislative bills have been often BOUGHT and paid for by lobbyists of activist groups!

It's called elitism and the Courant and the General Assembly crowd reek of it. Watch, the Courant will come out against CONCON.

[Nimrod]

jesse wrote:

<quoted text>I believe they're "holding" the decision until after November 4. They don't want to rile the masses. Palmer and his liberal cohorts have had this decision in the can for months. Ask Mike Lawlor, who has exerted tremendous influence in Supreme Court politics.

Who is Palmer?

[Bill]

Nimrod wrote:

<quoted text>
Who is Palmer?

He's the supreme court justice assigned this case.

[Nimrod]

Bill wrote:

<quoted text>He's the supreme court justice assigned this case.

Assigned to substitute for Justice Chase Rogers, since she recused herself?(At least she had the integrity to recuse herself from the case, which Margaret Marshall, the Chief Justice in the MA ruling did NOT---and Marshall had a BIG *conflict of interest* on the gay marriage issue.)