Advisory Group to O’Connor House Meets to Examine Government Reform Options
for Arizona’s Second Century
PHOENIX, Sept. 10 /PRNewswire/ — At the meeting today with statewide
business, community and political leaders, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
(retired) Sandra Day O’Connor and her Advisory Group to the O’Connor House
continued to engage Arizona’s leaders in “civil talk” to identify key
governmental reform options to recommend for Arizona’s Second Century.
As the recommendations are developed, the options will represent
the consensus of this statewide effort on how government should and
could be structured in Arizona’s Second Century.
Justice O’Connor and the O’Connor House Advisory Group organized the
initial meeting of statewide leaders in May, 2009. At that meeting,
over 70 participants, from across the political spectrum, considered
dozens of proposals that could impact government in Arizona’s Second
Century. A computer voting system was used to ask whether Arizona
“should” pursue various reforms and to identify and rank proposals as
to their importance and the difficulty in effecting each CHANGE.
As the package of reforms continues to be developed, Justice O’Connor and
the O’Connor House will continue to guide participants in reaching
consensus on the reforms to be pursued. As the “civil talk” leads to
“civic action,” the next step will be to identify supporters who will move
each issue forward. Throughout the process, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor
and the resources of the O’Connor House will be available to facilitate the
discussion, reach agreement and encourage action.
“The O’Connor House seeks to renew the awareness and knowledge about how to
work together, in a civil manner, to resolve the big issues facing us,”
said Justice O’Connor. “We all have one thing in common – the desire to
see Arizona’s future be stronger and better.”
For information about the O’Connor House, contact Strategies, Pam Hait or
Martha Hunter, at 602-952-0040.
SOURCE O’Connor House
“Momma knows what’s best for ‘her‘ Arizona …
after all, look at the swell job I did on the SCOTUS”
There are so many great things to learn from Justic O’Connor. So you don’t agree with some of her opinions, fine. But this is a disrespectful, unsupported, unreasonable attack.
For someone so concerned about constitutionalism she sure has a strange way of showing it. Why not have a real constitutional convention, made up of actual, elected officials per the process? Why ignore the current structure of government, and the authority it has, and come at it from the outside? That’s neither civil nor civic, but revolutionary in a Bolshevik way.
The end problem is that in order to avoid a smorgasboard of amendments voters can pick and choose from, you have to have a convention build the reforms as a new constitution to be voted up or down in its entirety. That requires voter-approved legislation before starting the process, then ratification in another election, if I understand the state constitution correctly.
“… so many great things to learn from Justic O’Connor”
Yeah I’m disrespectful. When someone is appointed to the bench as a conservative and, in time migrates to some pretty liberal ideas, I figure their original values weren’t very sound in the first place.
“Why ignore the current structure of government, and the authority it has, and come at it from the outside? That’s neither civil nor civic, but revolutionary in a Bolshevik way.”
You mean, like the Tea Parties? For Pete’s sake, there are always like-minded groups of people working to reform government to their liking in one form or another. Arizona has a long history of ballot campaigns — which would be required for nearly all of the changes O’Connor’s group has talked about — and of groups who get things on the ballot through the use of referendum and initiative.
Not to mention that the O’Connor Project plans to go through the Legislature to get the changes enacted. Oooh, scandalous!
And it’s not like there are any viable attempts to create a consitutional convention here. Andy Biggs has been trying to get one for year, but there is ZERO political will for such a thing.
So, this is what we now have in Arizona:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-15-2009/arizona-state-capitol-building-for-sale
National laughingstock.
So, my taxes are going to go up for the next twenty years because they (Behind CLOSED DOORS) decided to sell the Fricking capital buildings?
How about we sell the legislature with the inhabitants inside, sealed in with nothing to do until they pass a freaking balanced budget!!!!
Her?, that’s my point. What is being proposed by SDO cannot happen with a single amendment and a single measure on the ballot. The whole package has to go to convention, as it involves multiple subjects, and the “single subject” rule precludes “various” reforms from being included in a single measure. Without a convention, there’s really no way to build a new constitution.
“… Advisory Group organized the
initial meeting of statewide leaders in May, 2009. At that meeting, over 70 participants, from across the political spectrum, considered
dozens of proposals”
Ok, where is the Fourth Estate on this one? Where is the Press Release citing these “dozens of proposals”? Where is the list of 70 selected participants?
Why eliminate “term limits”? Maybe because some wish to return to the good old days they remember? Smoke filled back room Arizona politics once again?
How about publishing these “dozens of proposals” and opening a public dialog on them via a website?
Very few of the original members of the constitutional convention that formed our august governing document were elected or appointed officials at the time. If they were, they would have been been representing the interests of the crown. This post was entirely disrespectful, and typical of the usual VV tripe.
to Jack the moron …
Its obvious you don’t know jack about your history, “… very few of the original members of the constitutional convention that formed our august governing document were elected or appointed”
The constitutional convention was comprised of representatives from the 13 sovereign original states. Additionally, those *representatives* took back to their elected legislative bodies each draft of the Constitution as it was being drafted. It was up to the *elected* representatives of each of the 13 sovereign states to ratify the final Constitution.
And finally, our founding Constitution was drafted long after the colonies were independent of the British Crown.
Someday, read The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution compiled by Jonathan Elliot – commonly knows as Elliot’s Debates. I have a set.
So Jack, your attack is pointless. And there is no reason I must respect Ms. O’Connor – I respect her former office, but no longer the individual.
Sandra has returned to Arizona a changed women. And now reaching advanced age and with plenty of time on her hands, has decided what is wrong with Arizona and is setting about fixing it – unilaterally and outside the public view.
When someone of power takes their agenda outside the public view, its called a smoke filled back room, by invitation only.
Her? A Tea Party is not outside the normal channels of political operations. In fact its very American. Dating back to the Magna Carta, citizens had the basic rights of redress of grievances against the government. The current “tea parties” and other forms of demonstrations on both the left and the right, are just that – redress of grievance.
You’re a drooling piece of crud. You attack a messenger without any subtantial treatment of the reform proposals. You’ve turned into someone who has decided it is more important to judge people than ideas, and all fall short according to your warped yardstick. I’m sure it is very tranquil on your island where you can rule over all the annointed morons. The rest of his live in this world and try to improve it — which doesn’t happen when you attack everyone. Your historical treatment of the Constitutional convention is overly simplistic, as are you!
“…any subtantial treatment of the reform proposals”
Jack, let me be simplistic for you here, how can anyone open a dialog about the “reform proposals” when they haven’t been put into the public arena for debate? Why didn’t SDOs group of advisers begin a public dialog as did John Munger with his Imagine Arizona effort?
John Munger is traveling the state and putting his thoughts on the future and some real solutions on the table for public discussion. Something SDO so far has failed to do.
That is the flaw of elites imho.
As for the Constitutional Convention, I’m not sure how you mean “simplistic” but space prohibits a full discourse. Elliot used 6 volumes to record the events.
I’m sorry your posting in #8 exposed your complete lack of knowledge of history.
Keep in mind that a number of delegates left the 1787 convention in a huff and the proceedings went on without them. Some participated the entire time and just refused to sign. It was a remarkable situation.
Today’s situation is not remarkable. Few people today care about the details of our form of state government, for good reason.
My point exactly, Wolfy. Just finally got sick of VV using his keyboard as a weapon of mass delusion.
Jack, not sure exactly how your inaccurate history fits with Wolfy’s proper perspective of “remarkable” versus todays “not remarkable”.
And fortunately for everyone, the AntiFederalists managed to wrangle out the first 10 amendments to the final document.