Constitution needs partisanship shield

  • Article by: EDITORIAL BOARD , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 15, 2013 - 8:21 PM

It may take an amendment to make it harder to amend.

  • 26
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
logician88Jan. 15, 13 9:40 PM

This is typical of the way things work in our state. Republicans act like spoiled children and grab for everything they can when they are in power. Now the Democrats are in charge, and rather than trying to ram through constitutional amendments that further their positions, they instead act like adults and propose an amendment that will make Minnesota better for everyone for centuries to come.

RossbergJan. 15, 1311:01 PM

What's urgently needed is an easing our recall provisions allowing the public to petition for removal of any officeholder for any reason. Once elected officials realize that their terms are not just licenses to run wild for 2 or 4 years without fear of voter retribution then there would be less need for amendments since it would be easier to maintain a better degree of discipline and consideration for their constituents.

barefootpaulJan. 16, 1312:01 AM

It only makes sense that the Constitution should determine how legislators do their jobs and not be a tool for them to evade it.

my4centsJan. 16, 13 7:32 AM

logician88 - "This is typical ... Democrats ... instead act like adults." --- Yeah, right. If they were truly this concerned about partisan action they would require this type of supermajority for ALL legislative action, not just for amending the constitution. This simply gives the citizens fewer if any opportunities to act, other than once every two years when they must often choose between an adult and someone who offers handouts.

mtkamacJan. 16, 13 7:52 AM

I can't believe this wasn't done a century ago - our constitution is far to valuable to allow a mere 50.01% of any populous change it, be that an elected body or popular vote of the state's citizens.

evldedJan. 16, 13 9:08 AM

The constitution is supposed to protect rights, not limit them as the GOP attempted to do with it in the last cycle. We need to shore up the document to ensure that we don't get as dangerously close to soiling it forever as we were last year.

mnbusdrJan. 16, 13 9:22 AM

If the GOP ever regains control of the legislature--which is looking more and more unlikely as they continue their rush to the outer fringe--they probably won't try this stunt again. The marriage and voter ID amendments were supposed to bring out their base and ensure a big win for them. Instead, it woke up the majority of voters who live in the real world and that turned out to be a disaster for them.

bigbadbeanJan. 16, 13 9:27 AM

Liberals claim that constitutions are living, breathing documents that can be changed and reinterpreted as they see fit. My how they change their story when someone else plays their game.

gophypocriteJan. 16, 13 9:33 AM

Democrats stand for individual freedom, support for all citizens, and protection of the state constitution. Republican hypocrites stand for limiting the rights of the people with the exception of wanting unlimited ammo, mega-clips, and an assult rife in every bedroom.

johno3Jan. 16, 13 9:55 AM

my4cents - NONSENSE! First off when are you going to realize that we spend far more on corporate entitlements than we do to help the poor. And if you are implying that the GOP majority in the last session acted as adults, go back and look at the tapes and news. How about the lawsuit that we are paying for because of the way they handled extramarital affairs.


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