Con Con-vincing

I don't know why certain entities are so upset about a possible state Constitutional Convention.  People and lobbyists who suggest that there is no compelling reason to review the state constitution may have a point regarding changes, but what's the harm in discussing it?  Isn't that part of what democracy is all about- the free flow and exchange of ideas and points of view? Anyone ever heard of the United States Constitution, which has been amended 27 times?

What would have happened in those good old days if people were not open to changes that made sense for the betterment of the emerging nation?  And you can only imagine that all kinds of suggested amendments were tossed around with great emotion and simply didn't make the cut- as it should be.  As written, the Hawaii Constitution states that every 10 years, the voters of Hawaii can decide whether or not changes should be looked at via a Con Con.

I'm not sure why some of the same powerful people who believe that local voters have enough information to decide if rapid transit is right for us are so opposed to having that very same voting public denied of the right to decide if a Con Con should simply be held.  By the way, staid stalwarts of status quo, the voters aren't the ones who would actually be involved in the Con Con itself, as any suggestions on sweeping changes would be left up to those involved in the process.  And if nothing needs to be changed, it is worth the cost to find what voters think once a decade.  Opponents of Con Con complain about this as a waste of taxpayer money and time.  That's OK, we're used to government waste on far less worthy endeavors... every day.  Think about it...