VOTE "NO" ON CON-CON.

The first thing that they will do if this passes is look to get their hands on more money - and the pensions of all state employees will be the first to take a huge hit! Yes, they are required to ask the voters every 20 years, but there are a LOT of hidden agendas in doing so.


If you don't particularly like or trust the current state politicians, then why give them more freedom/access in their decision making? Unless you have particularly strong personal reasons for voting yes (such as a change in firearm laws - which I'm not sure would be affected anyway, Darko - and, at the risk of opening a new can of worms, what changes would you want?) - I strongly encourage all of you to....
VOTE "NO" ON CON-CON.

_________________

First, term limits/recall. I am a supporter of term limits. That's a lengthy discussion we can get into in another thread but that's something I believe would help the direction of our state and country. We also need the ability to fire a leader we've hired if, post election, they are found to be unable to do their job without having to wait it out. There is plenty of damage our shitty governor can do in the next two years, the least of which is replacing Obama.
Affirm the right to bear arms. The Supreme Court backs the individual right to bear arms. It's time for our state constitution to do the same.
Public School Funding. Meeks is an asshole, but he's right. Something needs to be done about how our public schools are funded.
Governor's Amendatory veto. Line item vetos give one man too much power.
there's more but I guess this is why I would support the Con-Con.
Also we're not legislating specific changes here. Just the opportunity to vote on future changes.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

I'm not sure. so who pays for it? The city's broke, the CTA's broke, the State's broke - is this an unfunded mandate if it passes?! Give me CON-CON for dummies without the hyperbole. And I don't even know what hyperbole means.

Darkside makes several good points... I would like to hear more of these points, so I guess I will vote for actionable items that will create discussion.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

As much of a hassle as it would be, I think we need to vote Yes on this. Its time that IL politicians (be it local or state level) be held accountable for thier actions.

_________________

*Also posted in the "Vote Yes" thread*

Here are a few things to consider:
1. A Constitutional Convention is not needed to make changes to the constitution. Amendments can be made at any time. 10 amendments have been added to the Illinois constitution since 1970 (which is 2 con-con "windows").
2. A Con-Con is not a free process. Estimates put the cost of a con-con at just under $100 million dollars. If you think that a con-con would allow lawmakers to designate funds more appropriately, I would suggest that you reconsider. The $ required would be very beneficial spent elsewhere (education, infrastructure, etc.).
3. The suggestion that having a con-con would hold the politicians more accountable is misguided. Remember that with the con-con, it would be the politicians making the changes. I sincerely doubt that politicians are going to make changes that would put themselves at risk, potentially. It would be similar to letting doctors write malpractice laws, and expecting them to install looser guidelines for filing malpractice suits - wouldn't happen. Not exactly the same, but I think you know what I mean.
4. Once again, the first order of business with a con-con would be to re-write the laws in order to move money from certain funds to another. The state, along with the rest of the country, is in bad financial shape. The pensions of all state workers would be at risk with a con-con. That is a large chuck of money that Gov. Rod, specifically, has made no secrets about wanting to get his hands on.
5. (For Darko specifically) - I am truly confused about the right to bear arms argument. Is it just that it is not specifically written, even though it is allowed by US constitution? The US constitution supercedes any state one anyway. I support the right, but don't like giving the lawmakers the ability to do alot of damage for the purpose of a written formality. (If that makes sense )

_________________