Like many others in Hawaii, when I first looked at the possibility of holding another Constitutional Convention, I thought, why not? After all, who doesn't want to improve some government function or other, fix our schools, stimulate change, and correct all kinds of problems that frustrate the hopes and aspirations of well-meaning groups and individuals?

But upon closer study, I began to have serious questions about the wisdom of using a Constitutional Convention as the way to achieve these goals. In fact, not only would a Con Con NOT be the best way to solve perceived problems, it could take us down a path we could well regret traveling.

Like our nation's guiding document, the Constitution of Hawaii is the foundation upon which all of our rights as citizens are based. It is the ultimate authority for all of our laws and guides our courts in interpreting them. And it establishes the structure within which our government operates.

It defines the three main branches of the government and provides for a bicameral legislative branch, an executive branch and a judicial branch. Besides providing for the organization of these branches, the Constitution carefully outlines which powers each branch may exercise.

It is a visionary document that reflects the reasons why it was written and the principles that define what we expect from our government. Like the U.S. Constitution, it sets forth a framework and is largely uncluttered by details. Those are supplied by state laws. But within its simplicity and lack of specificity lie its beauty and wisdom.

I find it telling that in more than 200 years we have amended our nation's Constitution only 27 times. And even though Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows for a national convention, we have never exercised that option, preferring instead for both houses of Congress to secure two-thirds approval of their members for amendments which were then ratified by three-fourths of the states.

A similar option also exists for Hawaii lawmakers in which two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate pass amendments for the voters to ratify. This alternative has been used effectively in the past to fine tune our state's founding document. And judging by the rarity of state constitutional conventions, many other states also subscribe to the wisdom of that approach.

Yes, we have held two conventions to correct serious omissions in our Constitution early in statehood. The last, in 1978, was to correct longstanding wrongs done to Native Hawaiians. But in 1998, dispassionate third-party experts, including the League of Women Voters, found no compelling reason to call for a Con Con. They are not supporting one now. And both of Honolulu's daily papers have come out against it.

The reasons given by those calling for a Con Con today fall far short from the justifications that existed in 1968 and even 1978.

Is there something so terribly wrong with our Constitution that we must resort to an arbitrary wholesale revision? In my opinion, the answer is no. If the constitution needs to be amended, it should be done surgically, via the legislative process as has been done successfully 49 times since 1978.

We would do well to heed an old piece of practical wisdom: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our Constitution mandates that we consider every 10 years the possibility of convening a Con Con. But it does not mandate that we must or should hold one. If we want serious discussion on changing the Constitution then we need to elevate that dialogue beyond wanting to “;throw the bums out.”;

Our Constitution is a wonderful living document that already allows for change, yet is unencumbered by the vagaries of politics or passing fancy. Let's keep it that way.