[et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ fullwidth=”on” specialty=”off” _builder_version=”3.0.86″ next_background_color=”#000000″ global_module=”145″][et_pb_fullwidth_header global_parent=”145″ _builder_version=”3.0.89″ text_orientation=”center” header_fullscreen=”on” header_scroll_down=”on” image_orientation=”center” background_layout=”light” content_orientation=”center” custom_button_two=”off” button_two_icon_placement=”right” custom_button_one=”off” button_one_icon_placement=”right” title_font=”|700|||||||” subhead_text_align=”center” subhead_font=”|700|||||||” background_image=”https:\/\/hawaii.concon.info\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/HawaiiStateCapitol.jpg” background_color=”rgba(255, 255, 255, 0)” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover=”null” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover=”null” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_color__hover=”null” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover=”null” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover=”null” button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_color__hover=”null” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover=”null” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover=”null” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover=”null” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover=”null” button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_bg_color__hover=”null” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover=”null”]<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_fullwidth_header][et_pb_fullwidth_post_title global_parent=”145″ _builder_version=”3.17.5″ categories=”off” comments=”off” featured_image=”off” disabled_on=”on|on|on” disabled=”on” \/][\/et_pb_section][et_pb_section bb_built=”1″ prev_background_color=”#000000″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.15″]<\/p>\n
A critical function of a constitution is to limit the powers Perhaps inadvertently, opponents of Hawaii\u2019s Nov. 6 state constitutional convention referendum have been vigorously attacking the core principles on which modern constitutional democracy is built.<\/p>\n To understand how, recall that Hawaii\u2019s system of constitutional government has two lawmaking tracks: ordinary and higher. Ordinary laws are passed by the Legislature; higher laws by the people via a constitutional referendum. Thus, when opponents attack the people\u2019s capacity to approve higher laws in their own self-interest, they are attacking the people\u2019s capacity for constitutional government.<\/p>\n A critical function of a constitution is to limit the powers of the people\u2019s government agents, including the Legislature.\u00a0For example, the people oppose granting the Legislature the power to control the length of its members\u2019 terms, critical media coverage, and other branches of government.<\/p>\n Hawaii\u2019s framers understood that giving a legislature such control would represent a blatant conflict of interest because a legislature would seek to enhance its own power at the expense of both competing government agents and the people. During America\u2019s founding era, proposals to eliminate such limits on legislatures were disparaged as \u201clegislative tyranny.\u201d<\/p>\n Consequently, we allow our legislatures to pass ordinary but not constitutional laws.\u00a0In a constitutional democracy, constitutional laws must be approved by the people themselves.<\/p>\n But convention opponents have been arguing that \u201cthose with the most money\u201d will win when the people are asked to approve proposed constitutional amendments. If they are right, then Hawaii\u2019s experiment with constitutional democracy is a failure. Moreover, their argument implies that Hawaii residents should give the Legislature control over passing all future constitutional amendments. The Hawaii Legislature currently has a dismal\u00a021 percent approval rating<\/a>.<\/p>\n Obviously, giving the Legislature such control is not something the great majority of Hawaii citizens would want, which is why opponents leave this implication of their argument unstated.\u00a0Instead, they attack direct democracy \u2014 as though direct and constitutional democracy were identical.<\/p>\n Opponents also claim that Hawaiians might be so foolish as to vote against constitutionally protected environmental, health and political rights that polls show the people overwhelmingly support. Such claims are profoundly anti-democratic.<\/p>\n Prior to Hawaii\u2019s last convention in 1978, opponents made similar claims. But that convention greatly expanded the rights of Hawaii citizens \u2014 far more than the Legislature has done during the subsequent 40 years. Indeed, many of the rights opponents now want to protect were proposed at that convention and then approved by voters.<\/p>\n Claims about the people\u2019s incapacity for self-rule were all but ubiquitous among government elites from the time of ancient Athens until America\u2019s founding in the 18th century. In Hawaii, convention opponents\u2019 narrow focus on the people\u2019s incapacity for constitutional as opposed to all self-government is a new twist on that hoary argument \u2014 but one similarly driven by government elites\u2019 desire to retain their hold on power.<\/p>\n For more than four decades, Hawaii\u2019s convention opponents, backed by the diehard support of legislative leaders and the money and organization of Hawaii\u2019s most powerful special interests, have been making such arguments against the people\u2019s capacity to participate in constitutional government.<\/p>\n The question the people should be asking the opposition\u2019s key backers is this: If they, as their coalition partners claim, would dominate both the people\u2019s vote for convention delegates and the people\u2019s subsequent vote over whether to support the convention\u2019s policy proposals, then why have they been so unremittingly opposed to a process they would presumably benefit from? And why have the unpopular groups they claim would benefit from a convention not organized or spent money supporting one?<\/p>\n Sure, convention opponents are correct that democracy is a deeply flawed process, partly because money distorts elections.\u00a0But doing away with constitutional democracy is a remedy worse than the disease.<\/p>\n #<\/p>\n –J.H. Snider is the editor of The Hawaii State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse (hawaii.concon.info.)<\/em><\/p>\n Source:\u00a0<\/strong>Snider, J.H.,\u00a0To Oppose A ConCon Is To Oppose Constitutional Democracy<\/a>, Civil Beat, October 10, 2018.<\/p>\n Illustrative articles attacking the people’s capacity to vote in their own self-interest when evaluating state constitutional convention proposals:<\/p>\n “Those with the most money will win.”<\/p>\n –Hooser, Gary,\u00a0I\u2019m Voting No On The Con Con<\/a>, Civil Beat, September 24, 2018.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n \u201cThe foul winds of PAC money… would blow in.”<\/p>\n –Coffman, Tom,\u00a0State Constitution doesn\u2019t need change<\/a>, Honolulu Star-Advertiser, September 30, 2018.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n “[T]he enormous power of dark money… has so infected our democracy [that]\u00a0voters should reject a Constitutional Convention at the ballot box this year….”<\/p>\n –Perruso, Amy,\u00a0Hawaii doesn\u2019t need a Constitutional Convention<\/a>, The Garden Island, October 2, 2018.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_4″][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Published in Civil Beat<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1373,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":" Perhaps inadvertently, opponents of Hawaii\u2019s Nov. 6 state constitutional convention referendum have been vigorously attacking the core principles on which modern constitutional democracy is built.<\/p> To understand how, recall that Hawaii\u2019s system of constitutional government has two lawmaking tracks: ordinary and higher. Ordinary laws are passed by the Legislature; higher laws by the people via a constitutional referendum. Thus, when opponents attack the people\u2019s capacity to approve higher laws in their own self-interest, they are attacking the people\u2019s capacity for constitutional government.<\/p> A critical function of a constitution is to limit the powers of the people\u2019s government agents, including the Legislature.\u00a0For example, the people oppose granting the Legislature the power to control the length of its members\u2019 terms, critical media coverage, and other branches of government.<\/p> Hawaii\u2019s framers understood that giving a legislature such control would represent a blatant conflict of interest because a legislature would seek to enhance its own power at the expense of both competing government agents and the people. During America\u2019s founding era, proposals to eliminate such limits on legislatures were disparaged as \u201clegislative tyranny.\u201d<\/p> Consequently, we allow our legislatures to pass ordinary but not constitutional laws.\u00a0In a constitutional democracy, constitutional laws must be approved by the people themselves.<\/p> But convention opponents have been arguing that \u201cthose with the most money\u201d will win when the people are asked to approve proposed constitutional amendments. If they are right, then Hawaii\u2019s experiment with constitutional democracy is a failure. Moreover, their argument implies that Hawaii residents should give the Legislature control over passing all future constitutional amendments. The Hawaii Legislature currently has a dismal\u00a021 percent approval rating<\/a>.<\/p> Obviously, giving the Legislature such control is not something the great majority of Hawaii citizens would want, which is why opponents leave this implication of their argument unstated.\u00a0Instead, they attack direct democracy \u2014 as though direct and constitutional democracy were identical.<\/p> Opponents also claim that Hawaiians might be so foolish as to vote against constitutionally protected environmental, health and political rights that polls show the people overwhelmingly support. Such claims are profoundly anti-democratic.<\/p> Prior to Hawaii\u2019s last convention in 1978, opponents made similar claims. But that convention greatly expanded the rights of Hawaii citizens \u2014 far more than the Legislature has done during the subsequent 40 years. Indeed, many of the rights opponents now want to protect were proposed at that convention and then approved by voters.<\/p> Claims about the people\u2019s incapacity for self-rule were all but ubiquitous among government elites from the time of ancient Athens until America\u2019s founding in the 18th century. In Hawaii, convention opponents\u2019 narrow focus on the people\u2019s incapacity for constitutional as opposed to all self-government is a new twist on that hoary argument \u2014 but one similarly driven by government elites\u2019 desire to retain their hold on power.<\/p> For more than four decades, Hawaii\u2019s convention opponents, backed by the diehard support of legislative leaders and the money and organization of Hawaii\u2019s most powerful special interests, have been making such arguments against the people\u2019s capacity to participate in constitutional government.<\/p> The question the people should be asking the opposition\u2019s key backers is this: If they, as their coalition partners claim, would dominate both the people\u2019s vote for convention delegates and the people\u2019s subsequent vote over whether to support the convention\u2019s policy proposals, then why have they been so unremittingly opposed to a process they would presumably benefit from? And why have the unpopular groups they claim would benefit from a convention not organized or spent money supporting one?<\/p> Sure, convention opponents are correct that democracy is a deeply flawed process, partly because money distorts elections.\u00a0But doing away with constitutional democracy is a remedy worse than the disease.<\/p> --J.H. Snider is the editor of The Hawaii State Constitutional Convention Clearinghouse (hawaii.concon.info.)<\/em><\/p> Source:\u00a0<\/strong>Snider, J.H.,\u00a0To Oppose A ConCon Is To Oppose Constitutional Democracy<\/a>, Civil Beat, October 10, 2018.<\/p> Illustrative articles attacking the people's capacity to vote in their own self-interest when evaluating state constitutional convention proposals:<\/p> \"Those with the most money will win.\"<\/p> --Hooser, Gary,\u00a0I\u2019m Voting No On The Con Con<\/a>, Civil Beat, September 24, 2018.<\/p><\/blockquote> \u00a0<\/p> \u201cThe foul winds of PAC money... would blow in.\"<\/p>
\nof the people\u2019s government agents, including the Legislature.<\/strong><\/p>\nExpanding Rights<\/h4>\n
\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n
A critical function of a constitution is to limit the powers of the people\u2019s government agents, including the Legislature.<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>
Expanding Rights<\/h4>