Constitutional Amendments

Copyright 2004 Bob Persons
November 7, 2004

It seems to me the Constitution has two functions: (1) Define the job of the government. (2) Protect citizen rights against the power inherent in the government. Any constitutional amendment should have to change one or the other. Yet we have a number of proposed amendments constantly making the rounds, not relating meaningfully to either of these functions, as though to convince us by wearing us down.

In addition to "Photo ID to vote," we are repeatedly asked to consider "Protect the flag", "Keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance", "Define marriage as between one man and one woman", and the "Taxpayer bill of rights". None of these guarantees rights to citizens; they actually restrict or remove rights - not the function of the Constitution. And only one (TABOR) addresses the functions of government; but it could be done perfectly well as legislation.

Republicans would have us amend the Constitution to enshrine their policies in such a way that they can never be discussed again. Taken to its logical end, eventually all flexibility and meaning will be drained from the Constitution. This just allows lazy legislators to avoid doing their jobs. If these proposals are to be considered, they should be proposed as legislation, so they can be easily fixed or removed if they aren't working. And stop this perennial self-serving waste of taxpayer resources.

- Lone Coyote Calls


Lonesome Coyote's home page
Email              Guest Book
Way out in the wilderness
a Lone Coyote Calls.
Your eyes fix on the shotgun
that's a-hangin' on the wall.

            - B Dylan