Constitution Convention?

For a few years now, state lawmakers have complained about the restricting spending limits and laws in Colorado’s constitution. Democrats cite problems with TABOR and Republicans aren’t fans of Amendment 23’s spending mandates on K-12 education. Both parties have blamed countless ailments in our state on the conflicting laws in our state’s charter document.

Now some lawmakers are floating ideas of asking voters to approve a Constitution Convention that would enable delegates to start from scratch and “fix” the problems.

Despite the volume of the complaints, I think lawmakers have made a poor case that our constitution needs fixing. Two efforts to address the problem were on last year’s ballot, but Coloradans voted them both down. Amendment 59, Andrew Romanoff’s move to address some issues in TABOR, and Referendum O, a move to make amending the constitution harder and statutes more permanent, both failed even though they faced minimal opposition.

Our state leaders are smart and influential people. None of them were elected by accident. I think it is time for our lawmakers to put their considerable talents to use by making a compelling case to fix our constitution, or they should stop complaining about it.

You may ask why there are so many conflicting amendments in our constitution. Amendments cannot be overturned by the legislature, only by the voters. Statutes, or basically, regular laws, can be changed by a simple majority in the legislature.

If you had an idea that you were passionate about, but you couldn’t ever get it passed in the legislature, would you try to pass an amendment or a statute? You would pass an amendment, of course. Many Coloradans feel the same way and they have made the majority of contributions to our big document, already weighing in at over 700 pages.

Referendum O tried to address this issue by making it harder to put an amendment on the ballot, but making a citizen passed statute harder to overturn. It was a good idea that was endorsed by many people. Alas, it failed on Election Day.

I think the voters are telling the politicians something. Colorado voters are not as thick as some politicians believe them to be. State leaders are worried about how their hands are tied over state spending, but the voters keep telling them the same thing, get used to it.

I like Speaker Terrance Carroll’s approach to the Constitution Convention question. He’s against it, and would rather look at specific problems and make those cases to the public.

Colorado lawmakers should get used to the feeling of constrained spending. Voters seem to like it that way, and since California just finished trying to rectify billions in a budget deficit, voters can certainly see the benefit of a restrictive constitution.

I don’t pretend to be a constitutional expert, so I might be simplifying the situation a bit. Many people that I respect a great deal would like to see a Constitution Convention. All I ask is that if they feel it is that important, please make the case. If we can’t trust lawmakers to change our minds on the issue, then we can’t trust them to “fix” our constitution.

The GOP Three: Zeroes or Heroes?

As President Obama’s stimulus plan officially passed the Senate on Tuesday, reports were already beginning about what would happen to the three GOP senators that crossed party lines and voted for the plan.

A report on CNN showed that prominent Pennsylvania Republicans were already trying to find someone to challenge Sen. Arlen Specter in a GOP primary in 2010.

In short, most GOP party leaders consider the three senators who decided to break ranks as pariahs.

But, I believe that all of this posturing is just that, posturing. In reality, the GOP Three, (my nickname, by the way) have allowed Congressional Republicans to have their cake and eat it too.

Consider this. Let’s say for a minute that the GOP Three stuck to their party line and made the Senate Democrats take the slower road to get the Stimulus plan passed. This might have slowed the bill’s progress and may have allowed for a GOP filibuster.

But, was a filibuster going to derail the bill? No. Was a filibuster going to show America who really cares most about the current economic situation? No. And most importantly, would a filibuster have trimmed $100 billion from the package and added tax cuts that House Democrats absolutely hate? No.

A filibuster bets all of the GOP political capital on only one potential outcome. If the stimulus plan fails, they would look like geniuses. If it succeeded, they would look like fools.

But, the GOP Three have allowed Congressional Republicans to ride the coattails of more than one result.

If the Stimulus plan works, Republicans can claim part of the victory since the GOP Three helped to trim $100 billion from the original proposal and fought to include a few tax cuts.

If the Stimulus plan fails, they can say that true Republicans were against it from the beginning, and we told you so.

Congressional Republicans are in a no lose situation, thanks to the GOP Three. But if I were Sen. Arlen Specter, I would not hold my breath waiting for a thank you note.