June 5: For Liberty. For Justice. For All.

Come up with a new Constitutional Amendment.

(Art and Soul)

I've always said (and this pre-dates my City Council days) that I want to enact a "Get-Your-Ass-Across-the-Street" Ordinance. Like for when people are walking too slowly in crosswalks or through parking lots...taking their own sweet-ass time...never mind what the rest of us are trying to accomplish or what traffic disasters we're all trying to avoid.

You go on ahead, dude. Don't you worry about the rest of us. We're just trying to make a left-hand turn in rush-hour traffic. No biggie.

But that's just a silly little local ordinance. And we're talking about higher levels of state and federal legislation. So back to the topic at hand: Constitutional Amendments.

Utopia looks something like this, right?

Ah, Constitutional Amendments. I can't think of anything that makes me angrier these days. In fact, I'm so jacked-up about Constitutional Amendments that I can't even play along nicely with this prompt. I can't think one up. Not even a silly one, like "All streets, in perpetuity, shall be paved with candy." I am so outraged by the way politicians are using Constitutional Amendments...all I can think to write about is what Constitutional Amendments should and should not be.

Here goes:

Constitutional Amendments should grant rights. They should never take them away. They should be about public good...for the entire public. Not just the part of the public with whom we are ideologically similar. We should never amend our most powerful governing documents to limit the civil rights of our fellow Americans. The majority should never, ever be allowed to vote* on the rights of the minority.

Constitutional Amendments should be based on facts and wisdom and intelligence. They should not be reactionary measures to emotional issues. We should not be--for example--making it harder for people to vote, especially when there is no actual evidence of significant, sustained voter fraud.

Constitutional Amendments should not be used in place of actual governance. They should not usurp the legislative process. I think that "putting it to the people" is cheap talk for "we couldn't get what we wanted, so we're going to act like this is about democracy." Especially in regard to fiscal issues. We should not be using the constitution to secure financing (or limit spending) over long periods of time. I feel this way, even when I agree with the designations for the earmarked funding.

I'm no constitutional law scholar. I don't pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about the intimate workings of the supreme laws of our state and federal governments. I just think that if we fought to give people rights at one point in time, we shouldn't legislate to take them away from others.

___________________________
*I'm not sure how it's done in other states, but in Minnesota you can't amend the constitution without putting it to a vote of the citizenry. So that's a good thing...it's not just in the hands of elected officials. The bad news is, the masses are (often) asses. Especially in regard to politically contentious issues. Sigh.