Why I favor a constitutional convention - part 1

The noise about a new constitutional convention for Indiana having died now, I want to follow up on my promise to write why I think it was not a bad idea. This is but the first post on the subject.

I recall worries that a constitutional convention would allow the far right wingnuts access to gutting Indiana's Bill of Rights. That the Indiana Supreme Court has done a fair job of doing that in the past 156 years is a topic for another day and probably another forum. I want to make one point in that sentence: gutting a Bill of Rights does not need to be done by a group of wingnuts.

More importantly, why not take on the wingnuts directly? I assume the process for selecting delegates would be the same as in 1851. In 1851, the delegates were elected in a public election and there appears to have been positions taken by the candidates. (I say this based upon my reading of the Debates which was large but not complete. Unfortunately, the 1851 Debates do not appear anywhere in an electronic format. Those serious about this subject need to hunt down a copy - probably at a library.) Ducking a fight can be made to appear that we think the opposition is stronger than we are and I doubt that proposition.

I read a bit on state constitutions and I do not recall any state constitutional convention being called to alter the state's Bill of Rights (by the way, all 50 have one). I ought to be far less sanguine having read two of the Indianapolis Star's blogs this past week. Both First Amendment at the fair and The limits of free speech make me wonder how people learn about their constitutional rights and angry at how poorly they are taught. Still, I think those elected as delegates would be knowledgeable enough on the subject of constitutional rights that they would not change them willy-nilly.

Take a look at Indiana's Bill of Rights and ask yourself what you would change and why. If you support the same-sex marriage explain how that gibes with Section One.