For example, a law prohibiting anyone from criticizing the governor would not be allowed by the constitution (because it would impinge upon our freedom of speech), so even if such a law were to be passed, it would be invalid and no one would be bound by it --- and this would be true even if the law had broad popular support.

As the world has become more complex, however, judges now struggle to apply the existing constitution to new situations, often with hotly debated results. Thomas Jefferson famously predicted this problem 200 years ago, and suggested that all laws (including the U.S. constitution) should expire periodically and be rewritten by every new generation of citizens, so that they might have an opportunity to remake the laws to serve them best. Ultimately this did not happen, but in Connecticut, the voters do get the opportunity to have a convention to revise our state constitution, once every twenty years.

This is our opportunity to reshape our own government to meet our needs as they've evolved since the constitution was last revised over 40 years ago, and it will not come again until 2030. Within this website, we've suggested a number of new constitutional principles --- both new limits on the government's power, as well as new mandates, such as environmental protection. Surely these ideas will be subject to debate, but the vote in November really isn't about these or any other specific proposals. Rather, the vote is whether we the people should have the debate in the first place, or if we shall instead continue to rely on lawyers and judges to interpret an aging document.

We believe that Americans today are entitled to be cynical about politics. Issues often take a back seat to personal glorification and attacks. TV commercials have made a poor substitute for facts, and paid talking heads have replaced spirited discussions with friends over dinner tables. The cost of all of this is prohibitive for most candidates to afford on their own, which means they need to take contributions, which of course is a virtual invitation for corruption.

But cynicism only gets us so far, and at some point, when we have the opportunity, we must act on our own behalf. We intend to prove that in the absence of corrupting multimillion dollar campaigns, ideas can flourish, and that citizens of Connecticut can still be relied upon to share facts and debate issues with one another, with the help of the technology of the information age and the news media, and ultimately decide issues for themselves.

In the absence of candidates seeking individual glory, there can be no character attacks to distract from the issues. We have chosen, therefore, to publish under pen names and we similarly encourage you to register as a supporter annonymously if you like. There are, after all, many people who have benefited greatly from the government as it is, and these people may fear what the people might do if we have the opportunity to effect fundamental change. By depriving ourselves of personal recognition within this website and through the news media, we also deprive potential detractors of the opportunity to come up with personal attacks in order to shift attention from the issues.

The vote in November isn't about us, the authors of this website. Nor is it even about the particular ideas we've expressed. It is about whether we the people should have an opportunity to propose and debate our ideas, and together, rebuild our state government to better meet our needs over the next 20 years. And whatever changes are proposed, the entire state will have to vote to approve them.

It is true that some respectable public figures have come out against the convention --- not because they seek to maintain their hold on power, as might be the case with some, but out of concern for what we the people might do with the power to revise the constitution. After all, there is much that is good about the constitution, just as it is. Might bigots and special interests seek to have their say?

Of course. And perhaps most trying of our own principles is their inalienable right to say it. But they will have their say, they will seek to share their bigotry and hatred with the rest of us and defile the constitution, and they will be ignored. And then the rest of us will have our say. And we will build upon the wisdom of the founding fathers and form a more perfect government.

If we have faith in the fundamental decency of the population; if we believe that the kind and egalitarian ideals of the constitution are more alive in the hearts and minds of the citizens than they are on an old piece of paper, then there is very little that we cannot accomplish. That faith has been tested time after time throughout history, and it was never held in vain.

The alternative, we fear, is to continue trusting a representative form of government, which has become synonymous with special interest and corruption. In that light, opposing a constitutional convention out of fear that "special interest" will take root is almost laughable. It is saying that politicians have a higher sense of decency than the average citizen. It is saying that legislators --- legislators who now must constantly raise money to seek re-election --- are somehow less influenced by special interest than the entire populace. It is saying that bills conceived in back room deals and written in legalese jargon are preferable to public debates conducted in plain English.

We're not suggesting that we the people are infallible --- that we cannot be mislead. Occasionally we have been, but never for very long. That's yet another reason there should be a mechanism for private citizens to propose constitutional amendments and submit them to the entire population of voters, not just once every twenty years, but whenever change is needed. And the only way that will happen is if we vote yes to a constitutional convention in November.

********

Protecting the environment and open space.

Reforming the government to combat unjust influence and give a meaningful voice to ordinary citizens.

Safeguarding everyone's access to healthcare, free from undue restrictions and burdens.

These things are not special interests, they are public interests --- ones not suited to being delegated to representatives. They're the very kind of public interests envisioned by the authors of the current constitution, when they wrote that we the people should have an opportunity to change it at least once every twenty years.