I'd really like to know the answer to a question, Markos.

Mr. Di Suvero,

If the recent L.A. Times article about you and your work is any indication, then it seems all is well. http://www.latimes.com/...

I'm again inspired by the recent newspaper report and an interview with you from close to three years ago: http://sculpture.org/...

Dear Bob,

I’m sorry I didn’t catch you Sunday down at Arlington West [next to Stern’s Wharf in Santa Barbara, veterans set up crosses in the sand with names of soldiers KIA]. Because of the rain, I guess you guys decided not to do it, which was a shame because it turned sunny by afternoon. Anyway, I’m typing this and I’ll hand it off to Ellen at her playwriting class this week.

Glen,

We spoke briefly at YearlyKos in Chicago last summer. You had people talking with you and at you all day, and I could tell you weren’t too focused. A week or so ago I read your post over at Salon: Amnesty Day for Bush and lawbreaking telecoms.

http://www.salon.com/...

I wanted to once again post links to a panel of lawyers and state legislators discussing the subject of a constitutional convention, and also a script created from select comments. The dialogue applies not only to state politics but national politics as well.

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/...
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/...
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/...
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/...
Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/...
Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/...
Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/...

This diary is next to last in a series about a panel of state officials and lawyers discussing whether or not their state should convene a constitutional convention, and why.

The past five diaries have transcribed certain quotes, and today's concludes with two more: one Anti-Conventionist, one Conventionist.

This is a series of diaries that transcribes some of the discussion between lawyers and state officials about whether or not to hold a constitutional convention. While many of us are wrapped up in the latest presidential campaign news, this is somehthing to keep in mind for the future.

As you may or may not know, the U.S. Constitution is composed of two types of law: structural and civil, i.e. articles and amendments.

Of the seven articles, Article V contains the convention clause, or the provision for a meeting of state delegates to find out if there is an amendment which might garner the approval of 38 states for ratification.

That same provision is found in each of the fifty state constitutions, and the state of Illinois is gearing up for a mandatory referendum as to whether the people think it's time for a constitutional convention.

A panel met to discuss the pros and cons.

C'mon man--start the dialogue for a national convention. You'd be the guy to do it, then maybe Markos would get into it, and you guys could say what we all know: that it's time to convoke our first Article V Convention of state delegates.

The YouTube video of what is going on in Illinois is of course going on in Washington (the movie Charlie Wilson's War lays it out well), so let's make it happen and open the windows. You know things are stuffy when you have pictures of Orwell hanging about.

On the screen we see the downtown skyline of a modern American city. Then an announcer says:

Next, a panel discusses whether it's time to call for a new constitutional convention. The question is an issue voters will decide on the November 2008 ballot. This panel discusses what would likely be considered by such a convention, and who would participate.

Six people--one municipal employee, two lawyers, and three elected officials--discuss the fundamental American law: our ability to alter or abolish. These Americans discuss the convention clause and it is in a way archetypal, how it lays bare the issue at hand--a truly fascinating document about the truth. And not only the truth of the people in the program, but the truth of our entire nation--from the person on the street to the President.

Next, a panel discusses whether it's time to call for a new constitutional convention. The question is an issue voters will decide on the November 2008 ballot. This panel discusses what would likely be considered by such a convention, and who would participate.

Six people--one municipal employee, two lawyers, and three elected officials--discuss the fundamental thing America is all about: our ability to alter or abolish. This program of these Americans discussing the convention clause lays bare the issue at hand. It's a truly fascinating document about the truth. It's not only the truth of the people in the program, but also the truth of our entire nation--from the person on the street to the President.

Last week, John Bambenek made a complete fool of himself by sending a complaint to the Michigan Attorney General about us evil Kossacks using our voting rights by picking up a ballot for the "Democrats for Romney" campaign.  He whined and cried that it is interfering with the "free assiociation" rights of the Republican Party by allowing Democrats to vote.  That was last week.

This week it is a new week and John Bambenek has apparently changed his mind.

John Bambenek is at it again. He's "filed a complaint with" (i.e. written a letter to) the Michigan Attorney General complaining about the suggestion made by kos of Daily Kos that Michigan Democratic voters vote for Romney in Michigan's open primary. TheSquire pretty much eviscerated his complaint by looking at what Michigan law actually says, as does Adam B.

I'm not posting about the silliness that is Mr. Bambenek's latest attempt at notability, but rather about some things he's said elsewhere. He is also a "freelance columnist" at a Kankakee paper, where he wrote this about a possible Illinois Constitutional Convention:

In an e-mail to his campaign list, the Kucinich campaign offere us a Town Hall meeting on a Constitutional Convention:

A Constitutional Convention, versus paying attention to the one we have:

This idea was, admittedly, originally posted as a rather late comment to an extremely long thread, on Larry Sabato's constitutional convention proposal.

It will probably get lost therein, and so I'm going to post it as a diary. I only hope that its relevance -- to the topic, to the larger political picture, to what America is facing and our approach for dealing with it, as well as our focus in the Democratic Party -- warrants its additional consideration here.  The point is very brief, and I hope and believe that after reading, you will see why I have suggested it, and made it a diary.

If you want an in-depth understanding of this diary I'm afraid you'd have to click my name and go back a couple. If not, this diary has some interesting ideas on its own.

Less than two years ago the writer Harold Pinter gave his acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize.

http://www.counterpunch.org/...

Why would a prominent professor supposedly in favor of having the nation’s second constitutional convention organize a symposium where the keynote speaker is dead set against a convention?  And why pack the three subsequent panels with people against a convention?  I kept asking myself these questions as I attended the recent symposium that Larry Sabato had the audacity to title "National Constitution Convention."

Sensational headline grab aside, I offer below why I believe that Mr. Sabato's push for a constitutional convention must be opposed by every good progressive.  This is not to say that I think Mr. Sabato is a bad person or malicious in his idea.  In fact, I have the greatest respect for him, having read and appreciated many of his books and insights on my way to a political science degree.  

But this idea for a convetion is horribly dangerous for our Republic and for progressive ideals.  Read below for I think so and why I ask you to join me in opposing Mr. Sabato.