By Daylin Leach
Recently, Tim Potts posted a column he’d written in support of a Constitutional Convention in PA. I think he’s misguided. But hey, its America. Tim’s been pushing his “all-legislators-are-evil-and-corrupt” nonsense for years (it’s just tragic that Tim isn’t running the state. We’d definitely be a utopia by now!) and nobody pays all that much attention. However, a Google Alert notified me that I was mentioned in the column so I read it and after so doing felt compelled to respond.
Tim and I had debated this issue a week or so earlier. I don’t mind Tim disagreeing with me and he was certainly nice enough during the debate. But his column so thoroughly misrepresents and distorts my position that it is unrecognizable. I’ve always been taught that when someone resorts to distorting your argument, its because they don’t have a good rebuttal to your actual one. This appears to be the case here.
I oppose a Constitutional Convention. Tim claims that in articulating my opposition, I stated in effect that we should be “terrified and mistrustful of each other.” He then claims that I said (using quotation marks) “Just look at your neighbors. We may be crooks, but at least we dress a lot better than you do.”
Let me first set the record straight and then tell you what I actually did argue. First, with the exception of the pro nouns, I never actually said any of those words. Further, I never said, nor do I believe that we should be terrified or mistrustful of our neighbors. I never would say that we (legislators) are all crooks because I know for a fact that 95% of us are not crook and I consider it offensive for someone to call a whole class of hardworking honest people crooks. And anybody who knows me even slightly knows that I don’t dress better than anybody. I have no idea what Tim is talking about in any of his representations of my position. And again, the fact that he won’t tell you what I really said suggesst that he doesn’t have a compelling reply.
Here’s what I do believe: A Constitutional Convention is a bad idea for several reasons. First, it is not clear that it could be legally limited in scope. If it is not we could have 40 or more issues decided in a few days in an almost unchangeable way. We could have a new Constitution that permanently enshrines public policy on everything from abortion to gay marriage to caps on malpractice damages to guns to legislative pay. We could require unattainable super-majorities to pass legislation that this or that interest group doesn’t want to see passed. And we could have it all come to the voters for approval in one up-or-down vote.
There are changes I’d like to see the Constitution. I’ve actually introduced the bill to Amend the Constitution to change how we do redistricting. However, I think the difficulty of the Amendment process which makes every change in the Constitution semi-permanent requires us to be thoughtful before making such changes and the idea of making hundreds of changes all at once is risky, and our current constitution is not so broken as to justify that risk.
Even if a Convention could be limited, I look at the bills that have been introduced to authorize and limit a Convention and I’m troubled by the limits they purport to set. They allow discussion of issues the right in Pennsylvania politics like caps on damages and limits on the ability of the legislature to raise taxes, but they are not only silent on, but actually explicitly say that things liberals might be interested in talking about, like creating a graduated income tax, are forbidden to even be raised. In other words, a lot of this movement seems to be an effort to make conservative policies the permanent status quo, regardless of who may win a given election.
These are my concerns as expressed in my debate with Mr. Potts. Reasonable minds can differ on the merits of what I’ve said. But you’ll notice I never expressed terror at my neighbors or anybody else. And I certainly never played the Wardrobe Card. When I was a lawyer trying cases, the judge used to instruct the jury that if someone misleads you on one fact, it is reasonable that he may mislead you on other things as well. If Mr. Potts is so willing to mislead you about my arguments, what else is he misleading you about?
The writer is the state Senator of Pennsylvania’s 17th Senatorial District.
Loading ...
In response to Sen. Leach’s concerns about a Constitution convention.
1. Nothing says that a convention has to be limited to 40 days. It could take as long as it needs to be informed and deliberate.
2. Nothing is decided in any amount of time. Delegates can only recommend changes. The decision is made by voters, who can accept or reject the convention’s recommendations.
3. Nothing a convention does and nothing the electorate approves is permanent and immutable. If it were, we would not have a Senate today. The Senate wasn’t added to our Constitution until 1790.
4. There is absolutely no reason to believe that recommendations would come as one up-or-down vote. In fact, the Constitution says, “When two or more amendments shall be submitted they shall be voted upon separately.” Article XI, Section 1(a).
5. You have to have a particularly jaundiced view of the electorate to fear that they will do the draconian things Sen. Leach mongers. I have found that most people are reasonable. But even if they weren’t, Article I, Section 2 — as well as a lot of American history — tells us that people have a right to the government they want, not the one the government wants to give us.
6. I agree that we need to be careful about limitations. Everyone has a different idea of what limits they want to see. That’s why we have said the citizens should decide what the limits are as part of the referendum on whether to have a convention at all. Again, Article I, Section 2 should control. Otherwise it has no meaning.
7. Misrepresentation is a particular art form that Sen. Leach engages in with regularity. It’s odd that he is so thin-skinned about it when it comes back on him, even in a manner that was was intended to match his own conspicuous absurdities. For example, I have never said, although he puts it in quotes, “all legislators are evil and corrupt.” I guess it’s OK when he does it, but not anyone else.
But I do say, and the Statewide Investigating Grand Jury agrees, that the legislature is so corrupt that those who are not are marginalized and rendered ineffective. Just ask Rep. McIlvaine-Smith.
It has been more than three years since the Bonus Scandal investigation began. Lawmakers have enacted nothing to prevent it from happening again.
It has been five years since the Pay Raise of 2005. Lawmakers have done nothing to prevent that from happening again.
It has been nine years since legislative leaders gave PA the second most gerrymandered legislative districts in America. Lawmakers have done nothing to prevent that from happening again.
Perhaps Sen. Leach can tell us who the corrupt ones are and thereby spare others guilt by association as sparing taxpayers the cost of investigations. But then it’s part of the corruption that no one, not even the good guys, tells the public what’s really going on, which is enough to make anyone suspicious of everyone.