The PA Constitution does not need "modernized" because hundreds of state legislators enacted the illegal payraise/unvouchered expenses of 2005.
Piccola is wrong. It isn't government that needs reformed - it is the kind of state representatives and senators who are willing to break their oaths of office who need booted out of office. To some extent, that was done with some 55 newcomers elected to state office in 2006 elections. They are currently mounting reforms upon themselves. More hearings on additional reforms are being held, aside from the Piccola hearings on a convention.
There is no need to open up the PA Constitution to a potentially unrestrainable Constitutional Convention.
All of the reforms offered can be done through the normal legislative amendment process.
It is disheartening to hear Sen. Piccola, and others, go on about limiting a convention.
They haven't considered the precedent-setting Philadelphia Convention...
Pennsylvania's Constitutions and the Amendment Process - Where it Began, Where it is Now
By Ann Liivak, former Reference/Special Collections Librarian
23 Pennsylvania Law Weekly 324 (March 27, 2000)
Philadelphia Convention
Less then two weeks after the Declaration of Independence, the citizens of Philadelphia were inspired to form a convention for drafting a constitution for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Provincial Assembly and the governor were ignored, and the convention not only entered upon the task of forming the constitution, but superseded the old government by assuming the legislative power of the commonwealth and establishing a Council of Safety with extensive powers to rule in the interim.
The elected delegates debated, drafted, and on Sept. 28, 1776, passed and proclaimed the Bill of Rights and Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania signed by "Benj. Franklin, Prest." The Constitution of 1776 provided that the power of amending the constitution would rest with a Council of Censors as it found necessary. The Constitution of 1776 was considered one of the most democratic state governmental structures of the times, even though it was not submitted to the electorate for ratification or adoption...
http://www.jenkinslaw.org/collection/researchguides/publications/ann-constitutions.php
Now that's what is called a precedent. If it's done once, without constraints, it can be done again, and there would be no stopping an unlimited convention from replacing not only our Declaration of Rights, but the uniformity clause and who knows what all else...
More coming soon...
Net the Truth Online
Time to revise Pa. Constitution
By Jeffrey E. Piccola
Tue, Apr. 10, 2007
Over the last two years, the actions of Pennsylvania's General Assembly, executive branch, and judiciary regarding pay raises and bonuses, to name just a couple of issues, have sparked a public outcry for the reform of state government. The type of institutional change being called for can be accomplished only by revising the Pennsylvania Constitution.
There are two ways to change the constitution: an amendment by the General Assembly or a constitutional convention. When Abraham Lincoln spoke to the nation in his first inaugural address in 1861, he said of a pending amendment to the United States Constitution: "To me, the convention mode seems preferable to the amendment process in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only persuading them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen with a purpose." I believe President Lincoln was right. That is precisely why a constitutional convention has relevance for Pennsylvania state government in this age of reform.
As chairman of the Senate State Government Committee, I held the first of a series of three statewide public hearings a month ago to discuss legislation that would provide for the convening of a constitutional convention. (The second was held in Harrisburg recently.)
The first question these hearings seek to answer is whether this is a proper time to hold a convention. Given the number of scandals that have rocked the state capitol of late, I believe we have reached a tipping point that necessitates a convention. There is precedent for this: The 1874 convention was triggered by a number of scandals. Public outcry at the time was such that a convention was warranted. I believe we are facing a similar set of precipitating circumstances now.
Second, can the changes that have been proposed in the current climate be adequately addressed in the traditional way of amending the constitution, or is a convention merited at this time? Since 1968, amendments to the constitution have been made in a piecemeal fashion. Amendment proposals can be initiated only through the General Assembly and must pass two consecutive legislative sessions before they can be put before voters. Further, each amendment can encompass only one subject. This is an arduous process that can take up to four or more years to accomplish. A convention could bypass this long process and place multiple amendments before the people within a year or two.
Third, what would be the structure, operating procedure and mechanics of such a constitutional convention, including decisions regarding the number of delegates, timeline, and place of the meeting?
The 1968 convention is our nearest model of reference, but unfortunately, that model is dated. Delegate selection in 1968 was controlled by the county parties, which would surely be unpopular today. The 1968 convention had a limited three-month time frame, which in my judgment would not afford enough time for serious deliberation. In addition, the Internet may allow the citizens to have direct participation in the convention process. All of these factors must be considered when crafting a convention.
The final reason for conducting these hearings is to discuss what limits and subject matter should be placed before a convention for its consideration. Should we restrict the convention's reach to a few specific items that go to the core of how government functions in Pennsylvania? If so, what should those subjects be? A constitutional convention may not be the best forum to tackle controversial social issues. However, it may be the perfect body to discuss the legislative process, the size of the General Assembly, term limits, salaries for legislators and judges, and reapportionment.
During the public hearings, witnesses from a broad spectrum of viewpoints have testified, and I invite the citizens of Pennsylvania to provide us with their testimony. A window of opportunity for reform now exists, but how long that window might be open, or even how wide it is, are not yet known.
State Sen. Jeffrey E. Piccola is a Republican who represents Dauphin and York Counties.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/pa/20070410_Time_to_revise_Pa__Constitution.html
http://www.piccola.org/
