You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Just vote "no" to the proposed amendments.
David Lebedoff wrote, "Yes, there should be some constitutional amendments. We have some in the federal Constitution that are worth dying for." In the Bill of Rights, the Founders gave us the template for worthy amendments. Amendments should always protect and advance human rights and civil rights. An amendment should never enshrine discrimination into our Constitution.
The writer makes good points that I essentially agree with. But one motive for such an extreme measure as proposing a constitutional amendment is that a single judge with an ideological bias can overturn a legislature passed voter ID statute. That effectively snubs the democratic will of the people, as happened in Pennsylvania.
Where was this piece just before the 2008 Legacy Amendment? Of course, no where...instead of blindly voting no or blindly voting yes, take some time and understand the issues. Stop being a tool for one party or another, use your mind and decide for yourself. I'm voting YES on Voter ID Amendment and NO on the Marriage Amendment...be open minded and don't do something because a particular political party benefits (or is disadvantaged); just go into the voting both and use your own common sense.
LOL. The Strib is in full panic mode over the fact that we (the Vote Yes rational folks) are going to win next week. You're still invited to the victory party. We love everyone...even our enemies.
Amendments should also never be a substitute for legislators doing their jobs. We elect them to represent us - on the floor, in debates, and during votes. These amendment proposals allow them to avoid both their peers and the Governor. Throwing the issue back at voters as an amendment proposal makes me ask: why again did we elect these people?
Stop being a tool for one party or another, use your mind and decide for yourself. I'm voting YES on Voter ID Amendment and NO on the Marriage Amendment. *** I commend you for your tolerance on the marriage amendment, but using your mind isn't the bigotry of the Voter ID amendment also discernable to you? Considering these two ballot initiatives as poison fruit of the same tree may brand me as the tool of the opposition, but unless you want to see alot more of the partisans who put these amendments on the ballot you could at least abstain on the voter ID proposal. If it was a good thing for MN would we be the 31st state to adopt it? Are we slow learners or what? Being the first state to reject it ...now that's more like it. Show that all that money doesn't make up our minds for us.
And people wonder why the founding fathers rejected democracy in favor of a republic and only let the people elect members of the House... because as some of the founding fathers observed, the hard truth is that voter is ill informed and too lazy to consider the consequences of his actions beyond tomorrow, lacks experience and knowledge, and will act in his own immediate interest at the expense of all others... The romantic idea of the people changing the constitution as they see fit and having a better world for it is just a romantic notion, a populist ploy - what mob in the fervor of the moment ever chose the rights of the lesser over immediate gratification? Lynch mobs protecting our women, witch burners protecting us from the devil, communist hunters protecting us from communists, protectors of marriage, and protectors of the sacred vote... same cloth - it's not about rights with a mob. But it is about rights with a constitution - that is what we use to protect the least of us from the mob, and the mob should not be allowed to change it in one day.
I can say with 100% certainty that if any of these amendments pass we'll be trying to nullify them out of our constitution within my lifetime. This is exactly why neither of these amendments belong in the constitution. One day in the not so distant future gay marriage will be legal and photo IDs will be obsolete.
"You don't need to flip a coin on Nov. 6. A "no" vote on both constitutional amendments is a vote to preserve our constitutional freedoms." ................ Depends on one's perspective. A constitutional amendment should defend and enhance freedom, not inhibit it. The Marriage Amendment is definitely an inhibition of freedom. The Voter ID Amendment on the other hand PROTECTS the rights of those legally eligible to vote against being adulterated by those who vote illegally. Polar opposites. Despite what the propagandists at the Strib try to sell us.
One of the more absurd commentaries ever printed. No amendments except, of course, the one or two cherry-picked by this guy? So the entire Bill of Rights should go except for the one amendment which allows him to postulate his drivel? No more women or persons of color voting? No more 18 - 20 year old voters? No more income tax? Well, I might go along with that. The only plausible justification for general opposition to amendments by an attorney is that it settles an issue which would otherwise be fodder for court cases and attorneys' fees. Make your case against the current amendments being offered if you disagree with them but this call for an elimination of amendments is so over the top that it's hard to believe that he's not trying to mock the issues.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
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.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks