What do you think of constitutional amendments as a way to make policy?
Posted at 5:00 AM on February 2, 2012
by Eric Ringham
(45 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government
Minnesotans will vote this fall on a constitutional amendment on marriage. Legislators are considering proposals for several other constitutional amendments as well. Today's Question: What do you think of constitutional amendments as a way to make policy?
Comments (45)
Bear
Lies like those old republican party favorites like: death panels, Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, Obama is the food stamp president, tax cuts for the rich stimulate the economy, Obama isn't a US citizen, there's no such thing as global warming, if there is such a thing as global warming it's not man's fault, republicans reduce the size of government, reducing the size of government will create jobs, republicans cut federal spending, unions are bad for the economy, social security is a ponzi scheme, you need to tax the poor more... the list could go on and on, but I need to get to work.
@Rickity Rucket 10 outright LIES by a political party is too many. This is not about statistics it is about putting trust in a party that represents your rights.
The question conceals a judgment that the marriage amendment is a matter of policy. The constitution should contain what constitutes the state and its interests. Surely the nature of marriage and family is part of what makes up a state. It is no mere matter of policy.
"Even the left-leaning StarTribune reported 80% support for voter ID."
And that many lemmings can't all be wrong, can they? I would hope that as people become more informed about the real issue and the real motivation behind the voter ID proposal, that they would come to their senses. Folks with libertarian leanings especially should be alarmed by this proposal. Requiring citizens to carry their identity documents for gradually more and more purposes is characteristic of creeping totalitarianism. If this passes and becomes the norm in most states, it will be that much easier to institute a national ID card, which could easily morph into an internal passport like the USSR used to require. It's good for democracy for the people to be a bit less controllable.
This is another ploy of the current legislative majority to fool the mostly ignorant voters to do what they themselves can't do. These proposed amendments, disguised as a method to let voters have their say, is not at all the purpose of their being put forward. It is a way to take power away from the public, keep that power in the hands of the already powerful, and are worded and designed to rise to the emotions of potential supporters of these horrid ideas. The republican majority continues to show the public that they cannot and will not work with the opposition, nor do they appear willing to work with the governor or any person or organization not in lock step with them on their agendas, be that financial or social. Shame on them, they do not deserve to hold office.
Sounds like some people are confusing Constitutions and Bills of Rights. Fun fact #1: the very first amendment to our state constitution was to authorize loans to railroad companies. Fun fact # 2: the state's Republican and Democrats were so divided during the constitutional drafting process that they refused to sign the same draft copy, which resulted in the creation of differing Democratic and Republican versions of the final "agreed upon" document. How far we have come!
I think many of the recent and proposed amendments are inappropriate attempts to avoid the legislative process, but it's better to have the people fighting each other than fighting the government - right?
If direct democracy is best, perhaps we should just dispense with the legislature and do all our governing that way. Or not?
I think that constitutional amendments can be a good way to make policy but only if it makes a significant change to some basic right. For example the constitutional amendment for Voter ID is the correct type of case to use the amendment process. It would change the way we vote (which is the bedrock of our republican form of government) therefore it should be up to the people if they want to show an ID before voting or not. The other two cases, the Marriage and Legacy Amendments are incorrect uses of the amendment process; one involves a tax increase which should be handled by the legislature and the other involves one group of people telling another group of people who they can or cannot marry. Both topics should have been left up to the legislature to create laws, which there is already a law to prevent gay marriage so the amendment is redundant.
40% of the Wisconsin Democratic party’s statements checked by PolitiFact were found to be blatant outrageous lies; 30% were totally false; and the remaining 30 partly false but very misleading.
Bear
Out of a sample of 10. Not exactly scientific. As for Walker 7% pants on fire lies, 41% Lies, 17% mostly false, 12% half true, 10% mostly true, & 12% true out of a sample of 41. I think that's part of the problem WI has with walker. Besides aspiring to being a douche nozzle.
Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.
Homer Simpson
It is a cheat. We have a Legislative process for a reason. If you are frustrated with the outcome elect different legislators.
I don't want to see us become a referrendum state like california. I think it should be required that a consitutional amendment pass state congress twice - once each in 2 different terms that way we have a better chance of having something that isn't going to be an attempt by either the democrats or the republicans to avoid both difficult passage and responsibility.
I support Constitutional amendments when they create MORE equality and protection for everyone, not when they are used as a tactic to turn bigotry into law.
Constitutional Amendments HISTORICALLY have been a good thing for America because most of the amendments frequently limited the power of the governments to repress Americans dictatorally whenever it wanted to or, more specifically, when the government was opposed by its own people. Today, the constitutional Amendments being suggested for 2012 does the opposite. Instead of granting more freedom, justice, and liberty to all, these amendments seek to LIMIT groups of people that THE PEOPLE of America are bigoted towards. This phenomenon ALSO is not to America. Many state constitutions LEGALIZED African and Indian slavery, and the US Constitution made African slaves 3/5's of a person thus denying them the right to vote.
Constitutional amendments should be few and far between. It's not a good way to govern. Why bother having representational government and checks and balances at all if you're just going to put constitutional amendments on the ballot every time you can't get your way? Silly and dangerous.
PS: Molding public opinion through flagrant misinformation: --- >>>> that my friend is the perfect definition OF a politial marketing campaign... actual through nmost marketing campaigns... properly dis-informing the target audience is far more usefaul than trying to positively inform them. few if any believe what an add says positively about a candidate .. but our TV-Soap-Opera Newscasts and ETainment Journalism has so fostered a national public fascination with "the dirt"t that we are, as a culture, pre-disposed to believe nearly any negative comment about anything. And it is so harrrrrrddddd to disprove some nasty comment.... wonder why ? NOT!
Bear - RECALL is for what each state consititution says is for - casue we beliee in states rights - except for North Dakota - which believs that Minnesota can't set rules on what kind of power it buys - but I digress.. Wisconsin's RECALL is for throwing the quarterback out after the 1st quarter. I agreee its a bit odd - I don't like Walker - but that any-time recall ... that's just beggin for folks with clip boards to be roaming the streets . sort of like legislators posting constitutional ammendments.. then showing up all over tarnation.... sometimes you wish they'd jsut lock'em up in St. Paul and keep em off tv, radio, internet until they'd pased all the legislation. Be nice for once if they'd do the work, pass the bills, lived with the consequences and had the decency to leave the population alone. they are becoming a menace.
While the Minnesota Republicans are miss using the constitutional amendment process, Wisconsin Democrats are likewise thugs by using the recall provision to remove a duly elected governor with whom they disagree, but who has committed no chargeable offence. Recall is meant to remove legislators for maleficence not difference of political opinion. Yet this same group is attempting to mold public opinion through campaigns of flagrant misinformation: 40% of the Wisconsin Democratic party’s statements checked by PolitiFact were found to be blatant outrageous lies; 30% were totally false; and the remaining 30 partly false but very misleading. Not one was found to have any shred of truth. You loose, you whine, so you lie to get your way. That’s a responsible party to be part of and trust?
These constitutional amendments are the tools that Minnesota's Republicans have chosen to stab one group after another of the state's citizens in the back. Very thuggish behavior.
It's a way for the majority to restrict rights for a minority if that's what you want. Not good.
its the equivalent of restartring your computer to close out of a file. Oh it works and it acomplishes the "singular task" .. but there;s is a much better way to do business. Take a look at California -- I think too many political "reboots" kind wears the instutuion of governance out and locks in ideas that really aren't all that permanent. For those who are arguing "good for the goose, good for the gander" ... I would say - when your goose is cooked --- its cooked .. How you gonna fix that?
It seems that every time the currently Republican controlled legislature faces an opposing view or possible veto from Governor Dayton, they propose another Constitutional Amendment. None of these amendments is necessary, and they certainly are not designed to enhance the rights of the people. How about doing some open-minded negotiation on the issues that are truly important to make our state a better place for ALL, and leave the Constitution alone until there is something that will improve it.
Making policies by amending the constitution is not the way to govern. It absolves the legislative and executive branches from doing their jobs. It shows me how unwilling to work together the legislature is.
I am all for them, unless I'm not. I suppose it comes down to what your position is on the issue. The same goes for using the courts to legislate. Both parties do it and it goes against our republican (small r) form of representative democracy and becomes an abuse of the system. In the end, it's all about who wins, because if you win then you are right.
"term limits for senators and representatives"
Suzie - I find it curious that while many feel referendum votes suggest that legislators cannot do their jobs, the term limit issue suggests that voters cannot do theirs, i.e. voting officials out of office.
Direct citizen legislation by constitutional ammendment is an awful idea. Example: in Ohio we now have a constitutional requirement for casinos in several cities. Inclusion in the state constitution suggests that the presence of the gaming industrey has similar importance to free speech or the ownership of private property. I do not find these to be of equivalent inportance in defining the social contract for the state. The election was won by the pro-casino voters but the discussion of the issue was largely driven by PACs funded by the gaming industry. The voter is an inexperienced legislator and has little experience in determining the validity of campaign statements or assigning their importance in a larger context. Finally, if law makers do not please the voters there is a solution at hand, they may be replaced.
What % of a total population does it take to restrict a minority before a state is not free?
I think it's a little strange to use constitutional amendments for topics as politically and emotionally heated as homosexual marriage rights. A state or national Constitution is supposed to be a definition of what that nation stands for, and personally, I don't think that a statement about rights that are highly debated among citizens should be something that is set in a document that so weightily represents our people.
Obviously I would want whatever produces laws that I think are best. But as repeatedly stated by others it calls to question the responsibility of what our legislators were elected to do themselves.
It sounds like a curious safety measure as a way to eliminate special interests' influence in government. As practical as that sounds it might be sending some wrong messages about how the government really operates.
Maybe we could have the ultimate logic twist vote: Should there be an amendment banning referendums on amendments?
"You can't simultaneously like and dislike amendments on principle, you hypocritical Republicans!"
Kinda the same for the Dem's on this too!
When you have an issue that has the support of 80% of the people and the obstructionist governor refuses to sign it, it's a valid method of making policy. Even the left-leaning StarTribune reported 80% support for voter ID. It has been designed to make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat.
I think it is a terrible idea. Clearly, many of our elected officials do not have the courage to enact laws. They are ducking their responsibilities - get rid of 'em.
Using Minnesota’s weak constitutional amendment thresholds, Republicans are using their temporary legislative majorities to audaciously grab power to shape Minnesota from the grave. They know that demographically they will become a minority party in the future, so this is a disparate attempt to get what they want now while they can. This is bad government brought to you by a Republican leadership which is unfit to lead us into the future
Using Minnesota’s weak constitutional amendment thresholds, current Republicans are using their temporary legislative majorities to audaciously grab the power to shape Minnesota from the grave. They know that demographically they will be a minority party in the future and this is a disparate attempt to get what they want now while they can. This is bad government brought to you by a Republican leadership which is unfit to lead us into the future
Constitutional amendments are dangerous because they subject future generations to the whims of the electorate from one voting cycle. We have a working government to determine such things, so why bypass it? Republicans are hypocrites because they actively work to repeal the "legacy" amendment while crying out for new amendments on the justification that they are the "voice of the people". You can't simultaneously like and dislike amendments on principle, you hypocritical Republicans!
If it's the only way to get things done - then yes. Since our overly paid elected officials can't do their jobs, it may be the only way we get things done.
The only admendment that should be voted on is - TERM LIMITS FOR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.
The Constitution is the founding document of a government. It may need to be amended when the founding document itself has "flaws". For example, if the founding document says that only white men of property can vote, the Constitution would need to be amended before non-white men and women can vote. If we think presidents should serve 5-year terms instead of 4-year terms, we need to amend the U.S. Constitution. Amending the Constitution as a substitute to passing laws is ludicrous. Unless there is a flaw in the founding document, there is no reason for the document to be amended. I support paying taxes for the arts, but I think the founding document already covers this - by giving the rights to Legislature and the Governor to pass laws to this affect. I have yet to see an amendment in my life that I would vote for.
Constitutional amendments (1) should not be a shortcut around legislation (2) should address "timeless and profound" issues and (3) should expand, not restrict civil rights.
By this assessment, none of the current issues qualify for this treatment and neither did the Legacy Amendment.
An interesting constitutional amendment might be "A constitutional amendment cannot be amended within its first 100 years of existence." That sort of enshrined permanence might cause people to think more than once about unintended consequences. Another interesting constitutional amendment might be "A constitutional amendment requires support of 2/3 of voters to be approved." The supermajority requirement would greatly discourage frivolous amendments.
As stupid an idea as the party trying to govern that way.
Whether it's from the left or the right, enshrining policy in the constitution is a bad idea. That's why I opposed the Legacy Ammendment, and why I oppose the voter ID ammendment. I oppose the marriage ammendment for other reasons, but it's not an inappropriate topic for the constitution to address.
Amendments should only be used to guaranty rights, not to discriminate, disenfranchises, or take any away ones rights, with the possibility exception to not allow people the right to own other human beings.
I do not believe the implementation of any amendment should be decided on a popular vote, especially the discriminatory ones currently being considered in the state. Our alleged representatives are shirking their duty once again, passing off their responsibility to the people instead of making tough choices and facing the consequences. If they had to own up to this it simply would never come up. Then it wouldn't be a political tool to pander to the racists and the religious zealots with the intent of steeling the next election. The politicians would have to move on to more important issues that actually affect all of us.
I believe using a constitutional amendment to make laws is a cowardly move. The anti-gay marriage vote this fall is several things: a means to bypass the governor's veto pen, a means for the majority to impose their will upon the minority, a means to superimpose constitutional authority over an existing law, a means for lawmakers to avoid having to go on record for their votes for (or against) equality; and......frankly, just plain MEAN. I sincerely hope Minnesotans will see it for what it is, and vote a great big NO to this form of discrimination against their neighbors and friends.
Constitutional amendments should be used very rarely and then only to right terrible wrongs, such as the oppression of a minority. Amendments should EXPAND civil rights, not limit them.
Governing by amendment. Look how well it's worked for California.
Once again, it's good if you are for the Amendment currently proposed and bad if you are against it.
A few years ago, the political left thought it was a good idea to have an amendment that raised more tax money for roads and transportation. And, of course, the funding was skewed towards a majority of that funding going to light rail, and not roads.
Then, an amendment which spent more money on the outdoors and arts. Geez, even MPR got in on that handout! The political left had no problem with that amendment,
WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND.
Ridiculous. Some are ways for legislators to shirk their responsibilities. Others are done to get around the approval of a governor from the opposite party. The amendment already approved for the ballot is an effort by a majority group to deny civil rights to a minority group. Never a good idea.
In the case of the anti-marriage amendment it is a move to make it more difficult for Minnesotans to allow marriage equality. Those opposed to equality see the writing on the wall. It is only a matter of time before marriage equality is reality due to a shift public opinion as more people get to know gay and lesbian couples and demographics shift. They are trying to use this anti-marriage as a speed bump, a higher hurdle, since we're getting very near to clearing the current legislative hurdle.
There are good reasons to amend the constitution. I just haven't heard any in the list of proposed amendments this time around.
| February 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock