Vote No On The

Constitutional Convention

To the Editor:

As a Connecticut constitutional law specialist — law professor; practitioner — I write to counter Joseph Markey’s uninformed call for a state constitutional convention ([“Support A Constitutional Convention”] The Bee, October 17). He is wrong on every point.

I don’t know where he gets the notion that the Connecticut Constitution doesn’t grant “the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Article First, Section 14 of the present Constitution expressly entitles citizens “to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.” It couldn’t be clearer.

If he objects to gay marriage, or to anything else in the present Constitution, he and like-minded citizens can work politically to have that Constitution amended. The amendment process in Connecticut, as described in Article Twelfth, is quicker and easier than it is under the federal Constitution. It’s also quicker and easier, as well as cheaper, than a convention. There is no need to waste taxpayers’ money on the latter.

And if Mr Markey supposes that a new constitution would curb legislative abuses (assuming that such exist), he should read Article Thirteenth (“Of Constitutional Conventions”), Section 3. It says that the legislature controls the appointment of convention delegates.

Pro-convention advocates often use populist rhetoric to conceal a hard-right agenda. We should resist the rhetoric and vote No.

Martin Margulies

79 High Rock Road, Sandy Hook                              October 18, 2008