Cleaning Up Illinois: The Putback Amendment
by Michael VolpeEveryone knows that things in Springfield, Illinois are broken. Everyone knows that the government of the State of Illinois is inefficient and corrupt. That’s all true, however, to truly understand the problems in Springfield, we must look at the structure of the legislature.
By its design, the legislature in Springfield consolidates all power in the hands of four people: Tom Cross, Christine Radogno, Mike Madigan and John Cullerton. Those are the Republican and Democratic leaders in the House and Senate. Power is consolidated through the process by which bills see the light of day. In the Illinois legislature, there’s only one way for a bill to be heard and debated: the rules committee. Not surprisingly, each of those four folks are head of the rules committee for their side in the House and Senate. As such, the head of the two rules committees have carte blanche over what bills will and won’t see the light of day. So, if any legislator wants their bill to get a hearing in the House, Michael Madigan must approve. You can see how such a process could corrupt, and does.
Second, there’s absolutely no transparency. At the beginning of each legislative session, the legislature is allowed to pass any number of “shell bills.” These are bills that literally are blank, or shells. Then, when leadership, Madigan et al, feel it’s time for that bill to become law, they go into a backroom somewhere, negotiate, and come out with a full bill. They wait no more than 24 hours and force a vote. Even if a legislator wanted to read the bill, they wouldn’t have time. So, bills become law and then media scrutinizes them and leaks all sorts of embarrassing details, only by then it’s still law. We’re seeing a similar process playing out in the current national health care legislative process.
This process played out to a “T” in the campaign finance reform legislation. After Blago’s indictment, public pressure was so extreme that Madigan et al’s hands were forced. They brought a campaign finance reform bill to the floor. Then, at the last minute, they went into a back room, cut a weak compromise, and took a watered down version to the floor. This should have come to no one’s surprise. The four people in charge are the main beneficiaries of the current campaign finance structure and they are the ones in charge of “reforming it”.
This process also played out in Emil Jones’ last term. (he was head of the Senate until this latest term) He was allied with Blago. Meanwhile, Madigan opposed Blago. As such, legislation literally came to a halt. All Blago proposed bills were killed in the House and all Blago opposed bills were killed in the Senate. So, nothing got done.
The problem of course was that the power struggles of three pols played out for the entire legislature. That’s because the power of the legislature is centered in only four people.
So, what’s the solution? Illinois activis, John Bambenek, has proposed the Putback Amendment. Here’s what the amendment would do. First, it would create a unicamarel legislature. Each district would be represented by three Representatives. There would still be primaries but a minimum of two candidates would come out for each party. Second, it would impose a term limit of four terms. Each term would last two years. It also eliminates the “shell bill” process and forces only texted bills to the floor. Beyond this, it would create a discharge petition process. If leadership refuses to give a bill a proper viewing, the sponsor can get 25 of 177 legislators to sign a discharge petition and this would force said bill to the floor. Finally, it would create a mandatory seven day period between when a final bill is finalized and voted upon. That way the public would have time to digest it and embarrassing details would come out before it passed not after.
Currently, Bambenek is collecting signatures. He needs 500,000 by May to get the amendment on the ballot in November. If it’s on the ballot, it would either need 50.1% of all the voters or 60% of those that vote on the amendment. Typically, far fewer people vote on amendments than vote in total.
Citizens can in fact add amendments to the Illinois constitution as long as they are “structural and/or procedural” in nature. Because that’s a vague description, all potential amendments wind up in front of the Illinois Supreme Court. In fact, only six such amendments have been attempted in history and five have been ruled unconstitutional and never passed that stage.
Beyond having its constitutionality challenged, Bambenek expects the validity of each and every signature challenged. There are 102 counties and 110 voting jurisdictions in Illinois. As such, the amendment could be challenged in the Illinois Supreme Court and in 110 separate election jurisdictions all simultaneously. If it happens to pass, but passes in a close vote, you can also bet that a vote recount will be requested. All of this will have to adjudicated as well.
The Illinois political machine is the one to challenge this amendment and it will be the machine and its lawyers that will challenge each and every phase of the amendment though Bambenek tells me he’s prepared for each and every litigation phase.
Here’s the full text of the bill.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
29 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by michaelemlong. michaelemlong said: http://bit.ly/81Eraw Cleaning Up Illinois: The Putback Amendment #tcot #rnc #gop #republican #conservative #teapartynews #sgp [...]
That is amazing stuff. I'll bet that no more than one in a thousand readers here would already know this info. Thank you ever so much for the insightful and well-written article.
Good luck to the reform-minded in Illinois. That's a tough nut to crack.
Cleaning up Illinois?
Systemic Institutionalized Corruption cannot be repaired or eliminated with an Ammendment in a Bill. Morals, ethics and values can never be legislated. They are fooling themselves. The only thing that can turn bad bovernment around, is good people doing what is right. Until that happens, it is all merely lip service.
Well said Cowboy. I live in Springfield and have been sick to my stomach about the way things happen around here.
"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."
Maybe it's time for the Saints….
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by michaelemlong: http://bit.ly/81Eraw Cleaning Up Illinois: The Putback Amendment #tcot #rnc #gop #republican #conservative #teapartynews #sgp…
Thanks Illinois, for Barry…thanks a pant load!
I won't say you're welcome, because I didn't vote for him. Most people I know didn't. The problem is that when you add the rampant voting corruption to the uninformed masses who would have voted for Hitler if he came back to life and ran as a democrat, you get the progressive movement and BO.
First, let me say that I appreciate the efforts and some of the intents of this "put back" amendment. I agree with the the notion that Illinois government is controlled by a handful of people and I also agree 100% with the problem that abuse of shell bills presents. It is accurate to say that legislation is controlled and intentionally stalled by stonewalling in various committees, rules being only one of many. Think firearm legislation and the AG committee! Anytime the powers that be do not want to vote openly on a particular bill, one committee or another is used to kill it and both parties employ this tool of stagnation. When it comes to entrenched politicians, it is true that Illinois has more than it's fair share of super long-termers.
However, the unicameral aspect of this amendment solves none of these problems. More about that in a minute, but first I would like to point out that a term limit already exists. It is not the fault of a system that politicians stay in Illinois government for decades, the responsibility for that problem rests with voters. When voters decide that a sitting politician has been there long enough, they have the opportunity to vote in some new blood. That is as it should be because then the people hold the actual authority. Removing this authority from the people is going the wrong direction, in this Illinois Citizen's opinion.
Now, back to the unicameral situation. The problem is not that we have a bicameral legislature, the problem is that the bicameral legislature has created process that affords these certain few so much power within it. A Unicameral legislature could and would do the exact same thing. So creating a unicameral legislature as a replacement does not correct this problem, indeed it makes the actual problem worse. Instead of having four main power brokers (some say there are nine), there would be only two. Removing time tested checks and balances is always a power centralization effort. I believe the put back amendment to be a power centralization effort and it sure isn;t the people who will be empowered.
Let's please realize that bicameral legislatures are a basic structure of our entire form of government. At the federal level, we have a House and a Senate. One is representative of the state and the other is representative of the people within the state. This is what constitutes the legislature within a republican form of government. Last time I checked, each state is guaranteed that very form of government by the United States Constitution.
I would offer that we should move toward a more open, functional, and accountable bicameral legislature rather than move away from it entirely. I would offer that the solution to the problems the put back amendment attempts to address are best accomplished in this way. Each county shall elect 2 Senators and each county shall elect a specific number of representatives based on county population according to the most current census. Rules of operation of both Houses must be formed so that when any Senator and any Representative introduces a bill in their respective chamber, a recorded full floor vote be required to either purge it completely or open it up to debate and amendment sessions. Once debate and amendment sessions before the full chambers are completed, then a full floor vote shall be recorded, with the "present" option removed entirely. Only up or down votes shall be allowed.
A unicameral legislature is a mistake unless of course the real goal is destroying the republican form of government by removing the check and balance power that is the base of that form of government. Incremental and guised steps toward direct democracy are just as dangerous and unjust as blatant leaps and bounds toward it.
We improve Illinois government and we elect better people to operate it when there is a crystal clear voting record by those currently in office. Removing the level of accountability afforded by a bicameral legislature is exactly the opposite direction Illinois needs to go. We need more accountability, not less.
Normally, I agree with your perspective on bicameral legislatures, however that has been perverted. The reason that Bambenek, and I think he’s better to speak for himself, wants a unicameral system is because it also sets up a system for increased ballot access. Currently, the machine in Illinois can use all its resources to knock out any and all outside challenges. By forcing ballot access, you also give third parties a fighting chance. The election system is entirely different.
This is an amendment to the state constitution. Constitutions exist to limit the power of government and the scope of corruption. Backroom legislating should not happen. Will it make politicians honest, of course not. But they’ll at least have the bills exposed to daylight for 7-days. They’ll still have to deal in a post-gerrymandering world. They’ll still have to be subject to term limits. It isn’t a panacea, nothing is.
As far as term limits, with gerrymandering, districts are drawn to be uncompetitive. Our election code keeps outsiders off the ballot. Power is so centralized, no intelligent or talented person would run because they’d simply be told how to vote or they’d have to spend a $1M each time to get re-elected to not have a seat at the table. 60% of general assembly races are UNOPPOSED in the **General Election**. If you have no choice, there are no term limits. Good politicians should move up to statewide office or Congress, bad politicians should move out. Both the business world and military have long since instituted policies to prevent stagnation by moving people up or out, there are good reasons for that.
The idea that a bicameral legislature is a check and balance in any real way here doesn’t take into effect the developments of the Voting Rights Act or how Springfield works. The purpose of a bicameral legislature on the national level is to have the House represent the people and the Senate represent the states. With direct election of Senators, that is somewhat hampered. However, with one-person one-vote, that system is unconsitutional on a state level. In Illinois you have a Senate district, then you cut it in half and you have the two state rep districts wholly contained within. Not only are both popularly elected, they both represent the SAME people. The only “check and balance” is competiting political agendas or beneficiaries of corruption. And we’ve seen that they manage to enrich everyone anyway. The purpose of a bicameral state legislature has long since been broken.
Elected senators by county sounds good, in principle I’d be inclined to agree. But it’s unconstitutional and we can’t do it. We can say the US Supreme Court is wrong on that point, but that won’t change the fact this would be struck down at light speed.
The other reason that unicameral is in there is because the Illinois Supreme Court has all but made it a requirement to have any amendment of substance. They may be wrong, but I can’t change that. Like term limits? Can’t have it without unicameral (courts threw it out in 1992). Don’t like backroom legislation, or that legislative leaders can unilaterally kill any bill? I can’t go there without unicameral (or I support, tricameral, quadricameral or some other absurdity).
There is no accountability now and we can’t make them accountable without changing the structure of the legislature. And they certainly won’t do it themselves. Writing this, I had to operate within certain constraints… I disagreed with them, but that’s the hand I was dealt.
If you want to make a transparent, accountable legislature where there are true competitive elections, this is the only way. I don’t mean to be arrogant about that, I consulted with experts and spent months on research on this. It is a very difficult problem.
If you have questions, feel free to contact me at http://www.putbackamendment.com.
I’m also having a conference call to discuss this tonight at 9pm central.
Phone # – 641 715 3635
Access # – 352015#
Wake Up Illinois! these four people are acting crimianlly! They forgoing their oath of office and notacting in the best interest of the stae! Kick them out and jail them for not unholding the laws of the state! Get real. Stop playing by their rules! their rules are uneithical and immoral! these four people are subverting the will of the people and in doing so they violate the oath of office which is an impeachable and recallable offense as well as criminal! Id' bet if you look close at their lives you'll find they've take bribes and kickbacks for their cooporation on a lt of bills and regulations! You'llfind they took cash to kill bills and regualtions. You'll find they gave special treatment to groups like ACORN AND SEIU for campaign bribes! Wake Up Illinois take back your state from these corrupt blowhards and clowns! Think about your children's futures if you don't! they are stealing your wealth and your rigthts for self gain! Wake Up before it's too late to save it! Get rid of the corruption!
Our Constitutions exist to protect and defend individual liberties. Forming government structure, with spelled out boundaries, is how that purpose is accomplished. I agree with you that backroom legislating shouldn't happen, but people are free to do as they will behind closed doors. All the legislation in the world can be created behind closed doors and it matters not. What actually matters are the votes that are taken accepting or rejecting any legislation. Politicians can be dishonest if they so choose, it is their right, what they don't have a right to do is hide that dishonesty from the people they are elected to represent. Creating a legislative process that is above board and open for all to see is what will ferret out the dishonesty. This is not accomplished by focusing on the formation of legislation, it is accomplished by holding to account those who vote on legislation regarding how they voted on it.
I addressed gerrymandering, use county lines that do not change depending upon who is in political power. Problem solved. You will get no disagreement from me that ballot access is hamstrung by the two main parties trading off times in power. Here again, all that is required to change that foolishness is politicians willing to make that change from their positions of election. I suppose we could engage in a conversation about signature requirements or even take it to a conversation about an open primary system, but that is digressing a bit. When it comes down to it, most of the problems allowing the corruption in Illinois government come down to two things. 1) The actions of the elected officials themselves and 2) the voters of Illinois not removing those from office who protect those intertwined ropes of corruption.
People can be told how to vote all day long, but in the end it is they themselves who make the choice to cast their vote as they do. It is they alone who is responsible for that vote cast on constituents behalf. No disrespect meant sir, but your attempt to shift that blame, that strawman, is part of the problem. It is exactly the kind of excuse making that sitting politicians eat up with a great big silver spoon. They love it when folks absolve them of their own responsibilities and that is exactly what you just did.
The authority of the voting rights act cannot supersede the authority of the U.S. Constitution. Springfield doesn't "work", it does the bidding of the Chicago Machine. I would offer you agreement that direct election of Senators created a huge problem, the core of which rests with severing an existing check and balance tie between the state's governments and the federal government. See how you agree with me that removing a check and balance centralizes political power in a place other than with the people even when billed as a means for the people to gain more power and more say?
That something is broken, because it was abused, does not mean it is not fixable. In some ways, I could take your comment to mean that the purpose of checks and balances is broken. Do you really offer that proposition?
cont'd
States have the authority to set their lines. Saying that setting them at the county lines is unconstitutional needs a little more support than simply saying it. If you can support how the Constitution (state or federal) would need to be changed, in keeping a bicameral legislature, then by all means do so. You aren't against changes to Constitutions are you? This on it's own shows that there exists more than one way to go about dealing with Illinois corruption and they are your own words. State lines are not unconstitutional, county lines are the same thing within a state that a state line is within the United States. Let's keep in mind that many states have bicameral legislatures without the corruption existing in Illinois…….
It seems to me that you far to easily relent to case law and existing legislation, throwing up your hands and shouting "it cannot be done". Had that been done regarding the Second Amendment, Heller would never have happened, McDonald would not be about to be heard, hence the Incorporation question finally answered in no uncertain terms, and Illinoisans would not be closer than they ever have been to seeing the abuse and denial of that set of rights restored. Indeed, Illinois courts have long been saying that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to Illinois and they are about to be shown once and for all that it does and that they have no choice but to respect it and strike down the longstanding corruption that is Illinois gun code.
Many said nobody could ever change Illinois Law regarding firearm rights. Indeed, they said some of the same things you say now, especially regarding courts. They were wrong and they are being proven so by people unwilling to relent and say "we can't do that" or "there is no other way".
You may not be able to "go there" but the the legislature itself can "go there". It is members of their own respective Houses who can. The committee issue can be dealt with absent any Illinois constitutional amendment and it most certainly can be solved without deleting half of the General Assembly. All the General Assembly need do is change rules they already have the authority to change. That may well take voters electing people willing to do exactly that. Like legislated terms limits (please notice that a term is already limited and it is actually terms you seek to limit), absolving the responsibility of the individual voter is a recipe for disaster. That dilution of responsibility has already resulted in increased corruption and power grabbing in government. Further dilution will only bring more of the same.
I agree that there is so very little accountability now. That is a direct result of the committee issue. The record voters need to be able to judge our elected officials actions is hidden away in an intentionally complicated process designed to do that very hiding. This is further complicated by bills that contain unrelated issues. Throughout, the problem rests within the legislature itself and the ability to bring about solution already exists. It is there to be exercised and all hat remains is electing people who will do so. As I have said, it does not take removing half the legislature to solve that problem. Sure, some structure needs to be changed, that structure in need of change is called House Rules and Senate Rules.
I profoundly disagree with your claim that this is the "only way" but I don't find that arrogant, just incorrect. However, I do sense a bit of arrogance when you talk about "YOU" changing this or that. With all due respect sir, "WE" change matters of government. You know, We The People, the voters.
What is required to bring about transparent government action is elected officials willing to do the people's work out in the open for all to see. If those there currently are unwilling to do so, then the existing check and balance must be invoked. The people must take it on their shoulders and elect those people who will do so.
There exists at least one form of accountability today even though you try to dismiss it as if it doesn't exist.. It is called voting day. Until such time as we no longer have voting day, then your claim that there only exists one way to bring about solution is easily demonstrated as incorrect.
It does make you wonder if this guy was even born here .. ti truly does …..
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag...
The machine cannot stand up to the power of the voters. It is time the voters exercise a power they have been convinced they do not have.
Let's follow the logic to it's undeniable end. The solutions to the federal government's corruption would be to eliminate the House or the Senate and have a stand alone body tasked with all law making. Ahhh, so much for the electoral college, so much for the tenth amendment, so much for state boundaries altogether. Folks really need to look at the big picture here. Phasing out the bicameral legislature is a phasing out of our very form of government. There is no two bones about it, I just wish that people who engage in these efforts, like this or even the National Popular vote movement, would be open and honest about the far reaching results of their endeavors – as they claim their endeavors to be all about openness, honesty and accountability.
Ashrak-
One, “one person, one vote” has explicitly, repeatedly and for decades struck down any method of district drawing where districts don’t have equal population.
Two, the case law regarding amendments of this type is clear, have you read it? I can provide you both the case law and a legal memo that justifies my position.
Ashrak,
with all due respect, you live in the theoretical world whereas this amendment lives in reality. It’s very easy to come on a blog and criticize an idea. Try putting together a campaign for an amendment and make sure that it passes everything including a plethora of legal challenges. You may think that you have a better way but if that’s really the case, don’t argue here but do it. Write an amendment, submit it, get the signatures, and get the votes for it to pass. Right now, you’re making theoretical arguments to someone that has studied the issue and has framed the amendment and a way that’s not only beneficial but will pass.
It’s very easy to criticize. It’s much more difficult to do. Be a doer not a criticizer.
I do not think the change will have much effect until the Chicago political machine is separated from Illinois politics. Most everyone outside of Cook County would be more than happy to kick them out of the rest of the state. It is not the rest of the state that is at fault for this group. If you were to look at voting results for the rest of the state, you would find it to be predominantly conservative.
I stood before a fella talking up this Amendment and funny thing was, when time came to talk face to face about it, he went bye bye. I took notice of his head shaking when I spoke about the need of checks and balances, especially in the form of a bicameral legislature – not to mention the reasons for it. Not only that, I noticed that when Mr. B wrote a letter to the local paper, he didn't have much to say about the largest part of this effort but instead focussed on the hooks that will easily get people interested. If dismissing the bicameral aspect of our republican form of government is such a grand idea, how about letter explaining it fully?
I did not stand alone criticize, I put forth reality based solutions that qualify my opposition to this amendment while offering the reasons for my opposition. I am an active member of the political community and I offer that doing something for the same of doing something is what has us in the situation we are in now nationally – "hope and change" right?
I am a doer, let there be no doubt about that, and if it is a Constitutional amendment in Illinois that is needed it is striking "Subject only to the police power" that has got to go.
What is it I am attempting to do you ask? Educate people about the real root of the problems that lead to the corruption that is Illinois government.
In Illinois, the real root of the problem is not the system of government, it is the rules created in the various branches of it. That is where the real change must be exacted.
If what I have said here today is untrue, by all means list the things that are untrue. I notice there isn't much of that going on….I wonder why? Hey I make mistakes just like everybody else. But I will say that your post to me certainly seems like something of an attempt to squash discussion about something as serious as a Constitutional Amendment that aims to undermine the very basic structure of our government.
For decade after decade, people in Illinois have been disallowed their right to carry and in some cases even own a weapon within their own home. Case after case trying to right this wrong has been dismissed in Illinois courts. You know why? Because they are CORRUPT, just like the other two branches of government here. That courts struck down people's attempts to gain access to exercising their rights was not a deterrent and people did not just give up. Hence, our rights will be restored shortly.
I will be carrying a firearm legally in Illinois by this time next year – at the latest. Care to bet a steak dinner on it on a gentlemen's level?
Feel free to cite case law that justifies your position all day long, I will stick with the Supreme Law of the Land, tyvm. Remember, case law is what has been used to "justify" the denial of Second Amendment rights here in Illinois and it is the Supreme Law of The Land that will see usurped rights restored. That you can bring case law to the table does not mean that what you bring to the table is just. My Second Amendment example shows that fact beyond any doubt to anyone who understands how our self defense rights have been denied in Illinois. The very thing you say justifies your position is the vehicle that has been used to exact incredible injustices in the form of civil rights violations. You might be happy to cite that record as justification, you will have to pardon me for not buying it for a second.
I'm just outside of cook county and my neighborhood is for the most part Conservative too. You are absolutely right. People shouldn't go blaming illinoisans for Berry. I didn't vote for him. There is only so much you can do when Daley, Blago, Axelrod and his cronies who've been entrenched for many MANY years fabricate information that forces his opponents to drop out of races. Just because a rapist is from someone's town, does not make that town responsible. Besides, the majority of this country voted him in – they can't blame Illinois for him anymore.
One thing is for sure, A lot more people are paying attention. And I really do think that the Obamunist is a blessing in disguise. His election has hurried the leftist plan and now it's out in the open for all to see. People don't like what they see and B. Hussein O. has probably destroyed the Democrats for years to come. Time will tell but if he wasn't elected, we'd still be moving in the wrong direction but at a slower pace, which is harder to detect and oppose. From this whole situation, I've learned to vote for who I like, regardless of the outcome. We should get the government we deserve.
For conservative shirts visit: http://www.eyeconshirts.com
That’s a nice rant however as I’ve pointed out twice, this must survive the Illinois Supreme Court not the U.S. Supreme Court as it is an amendment to the Illinois Constitution.
Six have been attempted and only one has actually succeeded because most are considered unconstitutional. Now, if you think that knowing what you know that you can actually create an amendment the kind you like then go for it. I’ve explained and so has John why it can’t be done. If you are sure that we are wrong, then instead of telling us we are wrong draft an amendment of your own.
False premise. An Amendment isn't needed. Unless of course one is focused on case law and the way around case law is to have an amendment for amendment's sake to create a new case law "thread". As I have stated, problems this put back effort attempts to address can be done without an amendment. It most certainly can be accomplished without removing core checks and balances and decision making power or responsibility from the people.
It appears to me that some folks don't much care for having to defend their positions when challenged, much less directly address debate brought to the table. I mean no disrespect, but stifling debate by attacking the messenger and ignoring germane and valid points is something the current administration, in Illinois and in the United States, has almost perfected.
Look at it this way for a minute, we all can't get along when people say things other people find offensive. So we must ban all speech that offends. Right? That is a solution to the supposed problem, right? Well, that isn't viable because there exists a boundary that prevents implementing that supposed solution. This amendment effort is much akin to that example. Some may not like that this boundary will be defended by someone like me with specific and open opposition to it, but to think that just saying " go away" eliminates that opposition is quite misguided.
You say you explain why it can't be done. I beg to differ. I test that claim now by asking you to explain how Senate and House rules cannot be changed, absent a Constitutional amendment, to solve the committee issue or the shell bill issue. As stated, voters already have the power to limit the number of terms a particular person serves and this amendment seeks to remove that power from the hands of the people and decide it for them. It is true there is debate to be had about county lines, and I look forward to that. If the house membership is based on population of a county and the senate is 2 per county, it would be interesting to see the argument put forth as to how that is not constitutional.
State government, as to it's form, must mimic federal government. The U.S. Constitution guarantees it. That state level, or even federal level, judges do not like it, or seek to rule otherwise, is something His Honor Antonin Scalia addressed specifically in the Heller decision. He wrote about the sanctity of rights protected by and guaranteed in the United States Constitution.
Has anyone ever thought that a set of case law has been built to present just the idea being put forth now? That there "is no other way"? You see, there is no way to rule over a free population and there is no way to usurp Liberty by force. Indeed, there will always be Freemen who will stand up and defend attacks upon Liberty. However, if a free people can be convinced to give up their freedoms willingly, then freedom itself is indeed in jeopardy.
Trying to convince people to willingly give up their authority to elect the leaders of their choice is an effort in that vein – whether you care to admit it or not.
It took a Carter to get a Reagan.
Does anyone remember when Pat Quinn led the grassroot effort to cut the IL House by a third? They accomplished the effort and the gov't we now have in IL is the result of it. It's never a good thing to take away representation of the people – it leads to corrupt control. Thanks…
In fact, Zinna, ironically enough, that was the only amendment that did pass.
Ashrak,
lead whatever movement you want to lead and fix the system how you want.
What I do know is that Bambenek is a doer. He’s created an amendment, he’s gathering the signatures, and he’s working with lawyers to make sure it withstands all challenges. You have come on this site to criticize him. That’s all I know about you so far. So false premise, no false premise, I have laid out what is the problem and how this amendment would attempt to fix them. If you don’t like it, vote no. So far, all I know is that you’ve criticized his amendment. What you’re doing to fix the problem is still anyone’s guess.
Sir, I criticized the amendment with substance and provided alternatives that you have not addressed. If you can point out where I criticized this man personally, please point it out. Good luck with that. The closest one could come is to point out what I had to say about a letter to the editor he wrote, notice please, that what I said was true.
You say that all you know about me is what you have read here, yet earlier you went so far s to tell me what world I live in, not to mention that on the one hand you tell what I am doing while at the same time admitting that you don't know at all what I do or do not do. Interesting….
You say you laid out the problem and how to fix it. I did, and will continue doing, the same thing. I will vote no and I will encourage everyone I know to do the same thing, while being fully willing and very able to explain why.
Fair enough?
Let me ask you this, Should something be supported just because it will "survive a court challenge"? Judicial activism is a major player in he problems that exist in this country, much less this state, today. Many gun laws have "survived court challenges" for a long time. This doesn't mean that those laws were right and proper, much less that they were due support.
Let me ask you this as well, are the problems with our federal legislature solved by replacing it with a unicameral legislature?