Earlier today, a group of good-government activists stood in the main rotunda and advocated for a constitutional convention aimed at cleaning up government. 

1968 was the last time a constitutional convention was convened in Pennsylvania, and it was limited in scope to the articles pertaining to legislative apportionment; judicial administration, organization, selection, and tenure; local government; taxation and state finance (with the exception of the uniformity clause already contained in the Constitution); and any amendment on the ballot in the 1967 primary election.

So the question becomes:  what would be the scope of the next one, and who will decide what that scope is?  The answer to those questions are perhaps more important than the question of whether or not to convene a convention.

While most of these advocates agree that things like shrinking the legislature or reforming reapportionment are noble goals, it is hard to close that box once it is opened.  One man’s reform can be another man’s “stay the heck out of my business.”

If you are a business owner or taxpayer, how about eliminating the uniformity clause to move to a graduated income tax?

We are sure the trial lawyers and doctors across the state would be interested in seeing a protracted floor fight over a constitutional cap on damages.  And there might be a few people lining up to take a crack at a gay marriage constitutional ban, not to mention a ban on all manner of abortions.

Are you a gun control advocate?  One handgun a month amendment, anyone?

The possibility of seeing a constitutional convention gets greater as more and more elected officials throw up their hands, and more and more candidates latch onto the idea.  But if it happens, keeping it under control might prove to be the biggest challenge of all.