A Trip down Memory Lane (con-con version)

With all the talk about a con-con, and what it may or may not do, I thought it useful to look at what actually happened in 1970.

1) EVERYTHING is up for grabs. In 1970 there were fights about cumulative voting - it was praised as a way to avoid control by party bosses. But a little later on you see that there was also a proposal to force the major parties to slate at least two candidates per district, so that it did not look like most districts had no real fight. One is torn between the "less boss control" argument and the "seems like biz as usual" reality.

The ACLU was seen arguing that we ought not to mention obscenity in the new con (as being not covered by free speech protections). When asked why, their rep stated "we dont think it harms anyone". When asked about exposure to and effect on children "our position changes, but not much". One charged trend in modern legal theory states that the "60's revolution" in law really focused on adults, and totally ignored children, and the effects legal changes had on children. Maybe we can have a go at this again?

Other things discussed were taxing powers, home rule (George Dunne is seen wanting it)

At least one delegate felt the need to complain that the coverage of the con -con missed "deal making" about some clauses, esp the "right to bear arms" clause, an especially weak one as it stands.

2) Its not fast! One article covered a minor power tussle during the con-con. It seems that 8 months were allowed to get the job done. The Con was about to take a break at the 4 month mark, without having really done anything to that point.

A member challenged the chair (and lost) and the chair responded "by using the tried and true legislative tactic of working through the lunch hour" to get some things done.

The chair did respond to criticism by stating that a lot of witnesses had been heard, and pointed to the time needed to ORGANIZE the con-con, and set up rules for proceeding. One wonders how long the latter task will take any modern con?

Lastly, they voted to have a separate election to ratify it. It was AFTER the Nov. general election. One reason given for a separate one was all the precinct workers can focus on the con-con if it is separate. Else they might focus on other elections.