Let's keep it a clean Constitution

  • Article by: JACK DAVIES
  • Updated: October 3, 2012 - 8:26 PM

The proposed amendments are at odds with its philosophical and practical purposes.

  • 121
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jdcarlinOct. 2, 12 8:29 PM

Minnesota Nice means VOTE NO TWICE!

my4centsOct. 2, 12 8:45 PM

From the length of this article alone it was apparent that it was written by a (former) politician. Problem is, he justifies the legacy amendment while defining our Constitution as protecting "our most fundamental rights". The legacy amendment was a TAX - something that should always be determined by our legislators, and something that takes away our fundamental right to our property (our earnings). This was simplt a VERY LONG article by someone who opposes these issues - he said nothing like this when our rights were taken away by the legacy amendment.

thehoffersOct. 2, 12 8:51 PM

In other words; don't allow the people to have their voice heard. I don't trust activist judges above my own judgement.

stephenkrizOct. 2, 12 9:18 PM

Why is it always the right-wingers, who love to hold up the Constitution as a sacred document, that want to spill red ink all over it and offer pointless amendment after pointless amendment? Sinclair Lewis had it right when he said that, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible".

davehougOct. 2, 12 9:38 PM

Nobody who wrote the constitution said "by the way this means gay marriage is OK" So to CHANGE to constitution, please use the amendment process, not judges.

ranger78Oct. 2, 12 9:44 PM

Funny, where was this sentiment when the boondoggle called the Arts/Legacy amendment was on the ballot? Because that certainly sullied the constitution.

reidOct. 2, 12 9:45 PM

Bravo, Mr. Davies.

middleman711Oct. 2, 12 9:47 PM

The problem is not what the constitution says or doesn't say, the problem is what the Judges will say it means. Outlandish (re)interpretations of Constitutional law -- mostly made in deference to popular legal theories and so-called modern sensibiltilies -- can dramatically reshape the basic laws of a state and leave the typical resident wondering what happened. That is how Massachusetts and Iowa ended up with Same Sex Marriage, as contrasted with other states that put it to a popular vote and did not enact the practice. Periodic changes to the state constitution are certainly needed, but doing so via popular vote seems a much more democratic way to change the meaning of a document that affects all Minnesotans.

Mippy1Oct. 2, 12 9:50 PM

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. Voter identity fraud is non existent in Minnesota. These amendments were put up by a GOP legislature to accomplish two things: 1. Draw conservative, talk radio indoctrinated voters to the polls in November, and 2. Bypass the normal legislative checks and balances we have. The GOP does not respect the constitution. It respects only money. And power.

reidOct. 2, 1210:35 PM

All this talk about out of bounds judges. Not one word about out of bounds legislators. Seems the judicial system gets special attention and condemnation for doing their job as the US constitution set up for a balanced government.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters