A constitutional convention is a “can of worms” or a “Pandora’s Box.”

That might be true at an unlimited (or general) convention, but not at a limited convention.

Because Pennsylvania's Constitution is completely silent on the topic of a convention, the General Assembly has the authority to regulate all aspects of a convention - including which portions of the constitution are subject to debate - with an appropriately crafted statute that enables a convention.

Legal precedent and judicial decree in Pennsylvania hold that such a statutory limitation is proper, constitutional, and enforceable.

Senate Bill 340 and House Bill 1929, the language of which was recently called “most sweeping Constitutional Convention bill” before the General Assembly by the Commonwealth Foundation?'s Nathan Benefield, calls for a limited constitutional convention.

The Citizens' Constitutional Convention Act of 2011, which is an updated version of these two bills, also calls for a limited convention.

The founders got it right - why mess with it?

That depends on whom you consider to be the founders.

If you mean honorable gentlemen in powdered wigs living 200 or more years ago, only one part of our state constitution remotely resembles what they wrote: Article I, the Declaration of Rights.

The Citizens' Constitutional Convention Act of 2011 takes Article I off the table; it won't be subject to any discussion at the convention.

The rest of our constitution has been rewritten four times over the years. The last rewrite was completed in 1968 and was planned and carried out by lawyers and politicians.

As a result, we're saddled with an expensive full-time legislature, an unaccountable court system, and an executive branch that can’t seem to secure a budget without taking children, police, libraries, or state workers hostage almost every year.

They don’t follow the current constitution; what makes you think they’d obey a new one?

It’s easy to not follow the rules when no one enforces them and the courts refuse to apply them properly.

One of the things a convention could do is suggest reforms that would give the document teeth by specifying methods by which citizens could take direct action to reject reprehensible acts of government or to recall those officials who blatantly disregard the constitution’s plain language.

I don’t want politicians or special interests rewriting our most fundamental law.

Under the Citizens' Constitutional Convention Act of 2011, public officials and registered lobbyists are prohibited from serving as delegates to the convention. Further, influence at the convention by registered lobbyists is tightly regulated by the bill and would only occur in an open, transparent, and publicly visible manner.

Finally, a convention does not possess any authority to rewrite the Constitution. Rather, it is only empowered to recommend changes, which must then be submitted to the electorate for adoption or rejection.

A convention will get bogged down in divisive social issues.

Most social issues fall under the provisions of Article I, the Declaration of Rights, which would not be subject to discussion at all under the Citizens' Constitutional Convention Act of 2011.

To help prevent divisive issues that may not fall under Article I from becoming the focus of the convention, any proposed constitutional changes are required by law to obtain the approval of 2/3 of the convention’s delegates before being submitted to the voters for final approval or rejection.

Pennsylvanians can’t afford a tax increase to cover the costs of holding a convention.

The Citizens' Constitutional Convention Act of 2011 specifies that $25 million be set aside from existing legislative surpluses to pay for the convention. No new taxes are required.

This figure represents a mere fraction of total current legislative surpluses, and less than seven percent of the annual cost of funding the legislature.

Have more questions?

Drop us a line!