-
Should the state hold a convention to amend or revise the state constitution?
Yes (3095 responses)
60.4% No (2026 responses)
39.6% - 5121 total responses (Results not scientific)
Posted on 10/30/2008 4:07:26 AM PDT by raybbr
A new poll suggests that voter alienation is prompting support for proposed revisions to the Connecticut Constitution, not opposition to gay marriage.
Voters favor amending the constitution to allow citizen ballot initiatives, but they reject the anti-gay-marriage sentiments prominent in calls for a constitutional convention.
The poll found that 50 percent of voters support a convention to amend the state constitution and 39 percent are opposed. But 55 percent oppose a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Instead, the poll found a correlation between a poor opinion of the General Assembly and support for the ability of citizens to legislate by petition and referendum.
"The constitutional convention question appears to be a referendum on the performance of the General Assembly," said Christine Kraus, who directed the poll.
The poll by The Courant and the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut was conducted Oct. 18 to 22. Five hundred and two voters were surveyed by telephone for the poll, which has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
On Tuesday, voters will be asked if Connecticut should hold its first constitutional convention in 40 years, opening the door to a wide variety of revisions, including citizen initiative.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
They politicians are using every argument in the book; "costs too much, will allow special interest groups to change laws, etc" to convince us that we should simply shut up and let their special interest groups have their say.
Should the state hold a convention to amend or revise the state constitution?
Yes (3095 responses)
60.4%
No (2026 responses)
39.6%
Absolute BS.
Voters are not alienated. And, if they were, their solution would NOT be a constitutional convention. Who the hell sits around and comes up with that as a solution? No one.
This, like getting rid of the electoral college, are Marxist attempts at destroying “government by the people.”
Huh? Are we reading the same article? They are trying to point out that voters in CT are feeling alienated from the process of governance. I certainly do and the poll bears that out. A majority want the Convention so they can have a voice.
If the voters feel alienated, the solution is in the constitution...vote them out of office and vote for representatives that truly serve their constituency.
And who among our representatives is intelligent enough and liberty-minded enough to IMPROVE the US Constitution? This is Barack Hussein Obama commie crap.
This is the state's Constitution we're talking about.
Just feeling kind of ornery, are you?
The state of Connecticut's Constitution requires this referendum every twenty years. It's the only time the people can have a direct vote on something. Otherwise the thieves in the legislature will continue to have their way.
But yes, I am uptight. One of the issues the Marxists have been pushing for since the 1980’s is a second constitutional convention. With the recordings that have been released recently with Hussein Obama talking about the “flaws” of the USC and wishing he could essentially build into it (or rebuild it through a 2nd CC) every socialist/Marxist item from the manifesto has me very worried.
If a state needs to review their constitution — as mandated by that constitution — fine, go ahead and review it and make changes. When I see the phrase “Constitutional Convention” though, I freak. The purpose of constitutional convention is to completely revamp an existing constitution or scrap the existing altogether to draft a new one.
That Obama thinks he is more intelligent than our Founding Fathers and that HE (the “anointed” one) can improve it, sickens me then turns me into a raving lunatic.
THAT I can agree with.
I don’t fear a convention at the national level at all. While the Senate and maybe the House would be willing accomplices, its unlikely Mr. Obama would get the support of 37 state legislatures in order to revamp the Constitution into a communist manifesto. If that support in the states was already there, the Bill of Rights would have been dispensed with a long time ago.
Unfortunately, regardless of the outcome of this election, the political culture in Washington needs to be drastically changed. It is too powerful and entrenched and will not change itself without a considerable amount of pressure from the outside. If voting where the answer then neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. McCain would be the only choices we have this cycle, the Federal Government would not be running an $11 trillion dollar deficit and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Chuckie would working somewhere in the private sector. It’s time for term limits, balanced budgets, public financing of campaigns, the death of the notion of any type of fairness doctrine, shifting of power away from the Federal Government to the States, a clear statement of the right to bear arms that can’t be decided away by a court anywhere, etc., etc., etc. I don’t think we can wait another decade or so to make any progress. There probably won’t be much left to fight for.
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.