November 9, 2003
IF IT'S BROKE, FIX IT:
Changing the constitution is a powerful government-reform tool avoided by officials: Article XVIII, Section 2: Power to the people (Steve Geissinger, November 09, 2003, Oakland Tribune)
California's constitution has been amended so much - more than 425 times in a century - that it's dysfunctional by most measures and at the root of many of the state's decades-old fiscal woes and other problems.With the state nearer the worst of times than the best, voters mutinied, recalling a governor for the first time and replacing him with an action hero from the movies. Experts say their message to politicians was clear - it's time for swift, unprecedented change.
But are they really ready for the kind of bare-knuckle, all-cards-on-the-table debate the state's founding fathers envisioned?
Not a chance, say political analysts, legal experts and historians. There's too much at stake to really put power in the hands of the citizens.
Even as states from New York to Hawaii, and from Michigan to Alabama, debate the wisdom of overhauling their state constitutions, California officials blanch at the mere mention of Article XVIII, Section II of the constitution of the Golden State.
That's the section, unused in 125 years, that permits a constitutional convention of citizens as an emergency outlet in troubled times - the most powerful and sweeping government-reform tool of all.
How about an amendment nullifying all prior amendments? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 9, 2003 4:35 PM
Why is it that the people so in love with the idea of a "living constitution"-- which means whatever the latest judge says it says-- are aghast at the idea of actually using amendment procedures spelled out in those documents? Probably because they know that they don't have the support of enough people, and don't want to make the effort to persuade enough people to their cause. Much better to just impose one's will on an unwilling and poorly informed majority.
As for the "runaway convention"-- so what? All constitutions have mechanisms where the results of any convention must be approved by either the people, or in the case of the US Constitution, three quarters of the states. If a convention does "runaway", it will defeat its own purpose by producing amendments which have no chance of getting approval. Especially if such a convention produces a whole host of such amendments, rather than one or two specifically targeted ones. The reaction of most people or legislators will be to say "the hell with all of it." And would it really be a "runaway" if three quarters of the states, or a supermajority of the people do end up approving of the proposed amendments? We didn't need any runaway convention to get the stupidity of the 16th, 17th and 18th amendments, and we did manage to correct the one of them, too.
While I hate to contemplate the rescinding of Proposition 78 (amending the Cal Constitution to limit property tax increases - which was necessary - but now is not the time for an exegesis), I concede that a constitution is not the proper vehicle for legislating tax rates and other public policy minutiae. I'm convinced. Convene the convention! After all, Californians adopted our first constitution in 1849, before we were admitted to the union.
Fred Jacobsen
San Francisco
I find it hard to believe that the citizens of the Fruit and Nut State could come with something that would not make OJ cringe.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 10, 2003 4:54 PMPerhaps someone could invite him to attend as a consultant.
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 10, 2003 10:29 PM