COLORADO ALERT! Constitutional Convention DANGER! (my title)

Constitutional convention weighed
Conflicting laws' effect on budget spurs proposal

Bipartisan momentum appears to be building at the state Capitol for a historic constitutional convention to reform budget-limiting provisions of Colorado's constitution.

Republicans and Democrats on a legislative committee trying to forge solutions to conflicting laws admitted Thursday they have hit a roadblock and probably cannot win the necessary two-thirds vote in the legislature to make needed reforms to the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, Amendment 23 and other laws passed by voters.

"We have elements of the budget that are in conflict with one another," said Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, who introduced the proposal. "This is the only way I can see that can get us off this highway that is heading for a brick wall."

White said the legislature should consider a proposal to ask voters to approve the formation of a 70-member convention of citizens, who would craft a package of reforms - without the restrictions that hamper lawmakers - to be put before voters.

For example, lawmakers need a two-thirds vote in each chamber to pass a constitutional-reform measure.

"We can't give up on this. A constitutional convention can come up with good solutions to all our problems," said Senate Majority Leader Norma Anderson, R-Lakewood.

Constitutional conventions are rare across the country. Colorado has never had one. While the state constitution allows the legislature to ask voters to convene one, the law gives little guidance on how one should be carried out, except that 70 delegates would be elected in the same way state senators are elected.

Senate Minority Leader Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Golden, and Sen. Sue Windels, D-Arvada, said they want to know whether the legislature can limit the scope of the convention or whether delegates could rewrite the entire constitution.

"I understand that to untangle these conflicting constitutional amendments we need to do something radical," Fitz-Gerald said. "But I want to make absolutely sure I know what we're doing before I open this Pandora's box."

"We're talking about changing the document that created our state," said Windels. "This should be something we do only after we've tried everything else."

But Gov. Bill Owens said a constitutional convention "is something worthy of consideration" to help the state unravel the current budget conflicts.

For example, the 1992 voter-approved TABOR law limiting the state's revenue growth and the 2000 voter-approved Amendment 23 requiring the state to increase education fudning annually left the state short of cash for some programs the last two years.

Democratic Sen. Ken Gordon of Denver said he is willing to consider a constitutional convention to get one comprehensive reform package before voters. "The concern I have is that some people are willing to change TABOR alone or Amendment 23 alone, but we cannot find a two-thirds vote for both. A constitutional convention can refer something to the ballot that includes everything."

But Joint Budget Committee chairman Dave Owen, R-Greeley, said he is skeptical that voters would approve radical changes to the constitution.

Several other senators said they thought it was premature to vote to have a convention before major questions were answered.

But most of the lawmakers on the committee said they would be willing to consider a convention, and they will vote today on whether to introduce legislation.

Does anyone else get nauseaous when reading this?? Am I just paranoid, or is there some REAL danger in allowing these cretins to AGAIN attempt to disable the TABOR? TABOR has amounted to Colorado maintaining finacial soundness, (relative to other states anyway) and the tax and spend brigade in Denver can't STAND that we won't let them take our money and throw MORE at programs that are already failing. The entire concept of fiscal responsibility and program EFFECTIVENESS assessment and accountability makes them react like vampires splashed with holy water. PLEASE tell me someone else sees the danger in this "Constitutional Convention" talk that I do???

We have elements of the budget that are in conflict with one another," said Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park, who introduced the proposal. "This is the only way I can see that can get us off this highway that is heading for a brick wall."

1 posted on 12/12/2003 12:00:26 PM MST by Ms12Gauge

Run this RINO out of office.

I do expect this from the socialist party however.

TABOR means we hire these folks to make decisions.

They need to cut the socialist spending and

pay for the things that are the legitimate role of government.

a bondslave of the Christ

chuck

I will acquiesce rather than argue the benefits of TABOR. It is a waste of time to kibbitz. I will tell you why I think you are wrong.

Please take a look at the web site, www.douglasbruce.com to read why I feel that the slum lord reference is evidence that the propaganda has been successful in assassinating the character of the man who had the juevos to stand up and take a stand against the incremental socialism creeping into your life and mine. Doug Bruce deserves a medal, not defamation.

It is my opinion that TABOR has allowed Colorado to remain fiscally viable when many of our neighboring states are in serious trouble. The liberals have a penchant for throwing more money at every little problem, as if Money were the great healing salve for all ills. It is much easier to appear to be doing something to correct the problems by appropriating more money than it would be to do the homework and define the problems in earnest. For instance, accountablility in ALL areas of government spending should be a given. Currently, the solution to all seems to be shoot more dollars into the pot. What we need is a tighter hold and more scrutiny of the actions of our elected officials. I think Tabor is that scrutiny.

IT seems to me that until these legislators get the point that WE run this show, and that they do NOT know, by some God Given superiority, what is best for us, we must hold onto the leash very tightly. Tabor does that. It blocks the money machine from gobbling up money that we need at home. Colorado has one of the highest State income taxes in the country. I don't see where the services we get for that money are any better than the less funded states. I think that we have to maintain Tabor, and a lot more controls that require voter involvement to change the status. Only when we begin again to govern ourselves, instead of allowing hired hands to do so without accountability, will we truly gain solvency, and superior living conditions.

Colorado is unique. We are special. And we have a moral job to do. We have to take up the reins, and insist that this horse go where WE guide him. When I was on the farm, if you had a plow horse who refused to be guided, you got rid of him... sold him off for a kids riding horse. IF Owen isn't with us, then he has been bought. and he can be removed. We can replace him. It just takes getting off the couch, putting down the remote, and taking a part of the machinery to make it happen. TABOR has to be protected, and the petition process has to be made more voter friendly. Please help us push them back.. AGAIN!?

I favor Tabor and Gallagher (sp?). However the school finance amendment sucks. So does the amendment to prohibit bear hunting. Those two represnt changes to our Constitution that were funded by interest groups. There was no mechanism or funds to get out the other side of the story to voters.

This is not just legislation, this is amending the Constitution. Citizen legislation is one thing, the Constitution should not be changed so flippantly IMHO.

FReegards.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.