"Very few Americans - and even fewer lawyers, judges, and scholars - understand that the Constitution they revere is not the Constitution bequeathed by the Founding Fathers. Ambition, ignorance, vested interests, and lust for power, false assumptions, distorted judicial postures, and the hard knocks of history have changed it into something never dreamed of by its creators. Few things are more important than for Americans to understand this."

Clyde Wilson, PhD - Distinguished Professor of History, University of South Carolina

Anonymous wrote:

"You sound suspiciously like someone who isn't big enough to admit even a simple mistake."

I admit I made a mistake when I responded to the post wherein you said we were all wrong. I should have been big enough to let you off the hook on that one. This discussion has been pretty pointless ever since then, and I am at least as guilty as you of prolonging it to the point of absurdity.

JQP,

How can I be behind on any count when you can't even keep up with the game?

You sound suspiciously like someone who isn't big enough to admit even a simple mistake. Especially after you went and took a swing and struck out because of your own wrong assumption.

If you want to stay in this game, step up to the plate.

Anonymous, you throw a really nice curveball when you're behind on the count. I'm not going to swing at this one, though, as it's clearly outside the strike zone.

JQP,

You really do need to work on being able to follow a conversation. My quote "We the People were smart enough to write the original constitution." is from a reply to Mason and at that point we were still discussing the Illinois Constitution. Heck my whole reply is clearly aimed at the Illinois Constitution.

You made the next post and through your own leap of faith incorrectly ASSUMED the US Constitution was being discussed.

End of discussion.

FYI, "Anonymous on October 9, 2008 10:01 AM" is me.

-JQP

Anonymous, here are your original words:

"We the People were smart enough to write the original constitution."

And here is how I responded:

"The majority of delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention were lawyers."

My apologies. I didn't realize that you meant the Articles of Confederation, a document that served as our "constitution" (never mind that it's not usually referred to as such) for all of ten years before people realized that it was wholly inadequate to the task.

You apparently didn't realize that this was what you meant, either, since you responded:

"Sorry JQP, but the majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not lawyers."

Maybe you were just confusing the Constitutional Convention with the Second Continental Congress, though no one ever calls the latter group, "the U.S. Constitutional Convention", and its achievements went way beyond the writing of the Articles of Confederation. Either way, since the Articles of Confederation had such a short lifespan, perhaps the Founding Fathers realized they needed the input of more lawyers, which his why there were so many of them at THE U.S. Constitutional Convention.

Which brings us to another point:

"There simply is no such thing as 'THE Constitutional Convention'."

I guess you're technically right, since, among other examples, every state in the United States has probably had at least one constitutional convention. In my most recent post I should have stuck to my original wording: "the U.S. Constitutional Convention". There really has been only one event commonly referred to as the U.S. Constitutional Convention, and it took place in Philadelphia in 1787. Yes, there might be others in the future, but so far there has been just the one, and I think you are bright enough to have known exactly what I was talking about.

John Q. Public on October 8, 2008 3:27 PM

"But, again, the point here is that it's a pretty good idea to have lawyers involved when it comes to writing a constitution, seeing as how that document will serve as the foundation of the legal system."

JQ

What ever rights the States (and individuals) still have, if any, have been whittled to almost nothing by the ever growing Federal monster that has bankrupted the country.

Does any constitution still matter since the written words now mean almost nothing. Obama "we need judges that decide from their hearts not the law as written"

My suggestion is that lawyers should be involved to make things legal; as they do in Europe or private corporations.

Turning the policy and decision making over to lawyers simply because they are lawyers doesn't guarantee a good or legal result. We'll get a great demo of a lawyer as chief executive after McCain finishes throwing the election.

So participate yes, control the agenda and policy making, no.

JQP,

Yes, you were mistaken because when you replied to my post you assumed that I was referring to the Constitutional Convention when I wasn't. Same mistake made by T.B.

Sorry that you know so little about U.S. history. Fact is the first constitution if the first constitution, period. There simply is no such thing as "THE Constitutional Convention". What happened then would be the same as if we held another U.S. Constitutional Convention sometime soon, we would simply be making more changes to what is an existing document.

Probably a pretty good idea to have lawyers involved? Hardly. They pretty much have screwed up the judicial and legislative branch. Recently they have twisted around the executive branch to the extent that we have an almost dictatorship under certain situations. Thanks to the lawyers we have the legislative and executive branches of government fighting about something almost constantly. Thanks to the lawyers our governement has never before in it's entire history been more opaque, distant, out-of-touch, unresponsive, and unaccountable to the citizens. We the People have been replaced by big business and special interests.

Forget the lawyers. We would be better off to replace all of them with writers and english majors... people who can write and communicate clearly. A feat American lawyers have never been able to accomplish. Fact is that most of our laws have been deliberately written in the manner that they are so that people will need lawyers to interpret and argue vague, esoteric points. The entire charge of the Supreme Court these days is only to interpret the intent of the constitution 200 plus years ago. Rewrite the constitution clearly with some statements of intent and for all practical purpose we would put the Supreme Court out of business. Good riddance anyway because the justices themselves and the political parties have totally bastardized the Supreme Court to the point where it no longer represents impartiality, fairness, and justice to the American people.

I said it before and I'll say it again. We do not need lawyers to do this. We let accountants be keepers of the accounting system and look at all of the scandals we had a few years ago that resulted in S-O regulations. The lawyers have been "practicing" with the laws of this nation for 200 plus years and still can't get it right. Criminals have more rights than victims. Big business and special interests have more rights than the average person. And all because these legions of lawyers made it so.

Enough is enough. Time to end the madness. It is time for the average person to set the rules for the legal system and let the lawyers learn to play by the rules we find fair and just and not by a set of rules that just enriches their interest and profession.

We have tens of thousands of laws thanks to Taylorism, most of which are obscure and not well known by anyone including lawyers. Laws are left on the books for decades after which they should have been retired or at least brought up-to-date. Many of our laws are written in such archaic or convoluted language that it is not uncommon to have court cases just to sort out what the law actually states. How warped is that?

If we have an Illinois Constitutional Convention the delegates can hire all the lawyers it may need for legal advice if any legal questions arise. Lawyers are a dime a dozen these days and really have been for quite some time. Heck, in 2007 we had 1,143,358 lawyers in the U.S. Out of these 1,143,358 lawyers I'm sure there probably are a few good ones. The rest may be lawyers, but they aren't exactly setting the world on fire either. Truth is with the process to elect delegates being what it is we are far more likely to end up with a bunch of mediocre lawyers looking for another opportunity to bolster their personal resume than to actually contribute anything meaningful to the Constitutional Congress process. I'll take a passionate person of any profession who is committed to improving our state constitution any day over some mediocre, lackluster lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

"Well we are all wrong."

Thank you for admitting you were wrong, but don't lump T.B. and I in with you on that score. From the beginning, I said I was talking about "the U.S. Constitutional Convention." I didn't qualify that with "of 1787" because no clear-thinking person with any knowledge of history would ever confuse that event with the writing of the Articles of Confederation, or the Declaration of Independence. In fact, I've never heard EITHER of these other events, both of which occurred under the auspices of the Second Continental Congress," referred to as "constitutional conventions," and certainly not "THE Constitutional Convention".

But, again, the point here is that it's a pretty good idea to have lawyers involved when it comes to writing a constitution, seeing as how that document will serve as the foundation of the legal system.

To JQP and T.B.,

Well we are all wrong. In my prior post the stats I mentioned were inadvertently compiled from a list of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. I'm asuming, but have not verified, that your stats were from the Constitutional Convention.

However, the stats that I had intended to compile were for the Articles of Confederation, which was the very first and truly the original U.S. constitution. The Articles of Confederation had a total of 48 signers, of which 20 were lawyers. Yes, a more than healthy legal representation by any measure, though still not a majority!

Life can go on without lawyers. Life as we know it will not end if the average person is more fully and fairly represented than the legal profession.

Anon--

I have to come down on the side of JQP on this one.

Check out this web site from the U of Missouri-Kansas City: http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html

You can read biographies of all the delegates who attended the US Constitutional Convention. 70 delegates were invited, 55 attended, and only 39 actually signed the document.

The site doesn't break down the attendees' occupations, but if you skim over the bios you'll see that (by my count) at least 30 practiced law. Another one or two studied law for some time, but it's not clear they actually practiced law.

T.B.

Anonymous, what research are you talking about? From what I've read, there were fifty-five delegates that attended the Constitutional Convention, not fifty-six, and thirty-one of them were or had been lawyers. And the distinction between full-time and part-time lawyers is a false one, as the key here is that legal training was considered invaluable for those who would frame the supreme law of the land.

Even accepting your numbers, seventeen isn't a majority, but it is still a sizeable percentage, and was almost certainly a plurality of all the professions represented.

-JQP

Bubo --

The Dems are currently too disfunctional to do that even if they wanted to.

T.B.

Sorry JQP, but the majority of delegates to the Constitutional Convention were not lawyers. Just another urban myth circulating among the legal and political science types.

Research into this question has identified 56 attendees, where they came from, their occupation, and even their religion. Of the 56 attendees only 17 identified their sole occupation as being lawyers with another 8 listing being a lawyer along with another occupation. For the part-time lawyers it is unknown how much time, if any, they actually devoted to the legal profession. Then, as now, there are people who like to profess to being a lawyer though they do not actually "practice" law and pursue another career.

Regardless, 17 out of 56 isn't a majority, not even close.

Our original constitution was written with input from merchants, land owners, surveyors, soldiers, printers, musicians, scientists, and yes, even ministers. What worked well then can work even better know. Leave the lawyers on the dock. This ship needs to sail without them.

Host Ted,

If approved, what are the rules for a convention and what is the process for any changes that are recommended to become law?

For example, the Democrats are the current ruling party, will the convention be a vehicle where they can ram through their entire agenda and them some?

Thanks,

Bubo

Just one question...

Many of us, of both parties, are very upset about how our country is doing due to our federal government. So should we change our country's constitution then?

Anonymous wrote:

"We the People were smart enough to write the original constitution. We the People are still smart enough to make changes to the current constitution. And we can do it with average, everyday people serving as delegates. We don't need special interests and we don't need lobbyists, and we sure don't need lawyers."

The majority of delegates to the U.S. Constitutional Convention were lawyers.

Well Mason,

Either you or I can run to be elected as a delegate. The more people who are committed to helping change and improve the system the less the potential impact if anything the special interest groups will have. I, for one, refuse to be held an emotional hostage on this issue. This is realistically the only opportunity we have every 20 years to "fix" the system when it gets broke or looses touch with reality.

We desperately need to get back to the concept of We the People in this country and in this state. We simply must take the time to get to know the delegate candidates and what they stand for. My personal bias on this is that I simply refuse to vote to elect anyone anymore who has a law degree. Fact is that between the lawyers, the accountants, the MBA's, all of the combined intelligence and greed of these so-called professionals have done nothing but sell us out and ruin our economy. Of these the lawyers have done more damage to our judicial system and our legislative system than anyone ever thought possible. Lawyers once were a respected profession that long ago sold out for power and money. From now on I want average people like myself elected to office. Maybe we aren't experts on the law but for me the solution is simple. When legal advice is needed on some of these issues we can just hire an attorney here and there when needed. Enough is enough of the lawyers having their hand on every aspect of American life. Get rid of all of them, kick them all out of office. Don't vote for them. Step one in restoring faith and confidence in the American government.

We the People were smart enough to write the original constitution. We the People are still smart enough to make changes to the current constitution. And we can do it with average, everyday people serving as delegates. We don't need special interests and we don't need lobbyists, and we sure don't need lawyers. The lawyers have had 190 years to get it right and have failed at every opportunity to do so. Now, We the People, have an opportunity to clean up the mess 190 years of lawyers have left behind.

Get involved. Learn the issues. Vote to elect delegates that will get the job done. Make double sure you don't vote for any lawyers or special interests or lobbyists. Vote YES for a Constitutional Convention.

Great things can happen with a constitutional convention. We just need to take it one step at a time.

I agree that there are many issues we as citizens would like to see changed. However I believe the process goes like this:
1) Citizens vote to open the constitution
2) The constitution is opened
3) Delegates (many funded by special interest groups) run for election (anyone can run)
4) The elected delegates decide what to change not we the citizens.

Special interest groups could literally fund and promote their own members getting whatever they want when the delegates vote. I don't think that the average citizen has the resources to get elected and the few that do would be overpowered by the special interest delegates.

I understand Anonymous's (10/6/08) specific complaints and I agree with most of them. I have a fear that our greedy politicians are currently hiding in the shadows hoping that we open the constitution so that they can grab even more of the pie.

Will I vote YES for a constitutional convention? Absolutely! Everyone and anyone who is fed up and/or frustrated with the lackluster job of our state and local government, and especially the performance of elected officials, has a vested right in voting in favor of a constitutional convention.

We the People deserve every opportunity we get to insert ourselves between what we need and want as citizens and voters and what our elected representatives in Springfield fail to deliver.

When and if our republic form of government works well we really do not need a constitutional convention. However, when it fails and our representatives sell themselves out to big business, lobbyist, and special interest then it become time for the will of the people to speak and force the change and reform that is become more and more apparently necessary since the last constitutional convention.

Issues high on my list to be addressed at a constitutional convention would include:
1. End political corruption in Illinois once and for all.
2. Term limits for all elected officials.
3. Ability of citizens to initiate/petition for binding referendum at all levels of state and local government.
4. Ability of citizens to initiate/petition for a recall election on any elected official at any level of state or local government.
5. End political appointments to boards/commissions by converting all such positions to an election process also subject to recall.
6. End "pay to play" politics and other similar ethics reform.
7. Campaign contribution limits and disposition of campaign assets at end of term.
8. Abolishment of home rule.
9. Abolishment of TIF.
10. Abolishment of eminent domain for private development.
11. Abolishment of township level of government.
12. Abolishment of the privatization of government owned assets (i.e. Skyway, Midway Airport, etc.).
13. Government employee pension and benefit reform.
14. Property tax rate stabilization.
15. Establish municipal government parity by abolishing two sets of rules, one for Chicago and another for everyone else.

This is probably enough topics to get started on the first day of the convention and just what comes to me quickly off the top of my head. I'll have to get back to everyone on what to suggest to place on the agenda for the second, third, fourth days, etc.