Burnt Orange Report

I think changing constitutions is a very dangerous thing to do. We have a pretty good constitution in Texas. The problem is the Republicans for some reason don't respect it any more than they respect the US Constitution. Getting politically incorrect once more, had anyone bothered to read the original amendments, there would have been no need for any other ones. For the most part, some don't even respect the amendments their party supported.

And we won't even discuss the Republican legislators and the judges. It is business as usual. Meaning only business has any real protections and rights under the law in this state. Proposition 12 was a prime example of how our constitution is constantly being amended in order to literally render it meaningless.

Again, the problem is voter apathy. I cannot believe there are truly more Republicans than Democrats in this state or in this country.

Believe what you want, but there are.

And we hardly have a 'pretty good constitution' in Texas. It has been amended over 430 times, with over 600 proposed. It was made the way it was as a reaction to an overzealous Republican Governor in the 1800s and was a reactionary document which wanted to take as much power away from the executive and put it in the people's hands (the Lege and statewide votes).

This doesn't work anymore and there is no reason the state should be voting on land titles in Upshur and Smith county.

Given the small percentage of eligible voters in this country who actually vote, I would question whether there really are more Republicans than Democrats. Just the number of Democrats who were apparently blocked from voting in Florida in 2000 indicates that there may be more Democrats than Republicans. Even some who want to vote are not able to. I am still so offended that the problems in Florida were never properly addressed. Add some manipulation here and there and a Supreme Court that plays along and you have a Republican majority. Not a real one. An apparent one.

We will disgree about the constitution. I think the citizens should have the sole right in some cases to decide what "law" is in this state.

In over 170 instances, the citizens said "no" and the problem may be that the citizens haven't said "no" enough.

I think you hit the nail on the head. We need to be careful in our reaction to an overzealous Republican governor. Not the first one we've had. But with a little luck and enough Democrats at the polls next November, the last one.

They tried to get a taskforce committee to do this a few years ago, and it didn't work. Every few years people want to change up the constitution, and it never goes through. Think about it -- if you don't trust the Texas Legislature to decide maximum interest rates, are you really going to trust the Texas Legislature to do a complete overhaul on the Constitution?

I think the most serious push was in the late 1970's -- some of our more experienced readers could probably fill us in on that, and why it failed then.

Republican governors of that era are far different of ones of this one. Parties have changed in Texas.

"Think about it -- if you don't trust the Texas Legislature to decide maximum interest rates, are you really going to trust the Texas Legislature to do a complete overhaul on the Constitution?"

Time to move permanently to New Mexico if that happens. At least with this legislature.

I am very leary at the thought of what a revision of the constitution might produce in the current political climate.

Regardless, I would hope that any constitution would require a statewide vote on questions of land titles and vacancies. I do not want to see the Legislature with the authority to just give state property away, which is what the voters approved in the Upshur and Smith proposition and in similiar propositions in previous years.

Karl-T:

"Time to redraft the Texas Constitution? Yes, let's start thinking about that in the next few sessions. After we throw a few more Republicans out of office of course."

If I were you, I'd concentrate on getting out the dead vote for the Democratic Party. Of course, that will be harder to do now that paper ballots are a thing of the past, and you have to show I.D. at the polls.

Baby Snooks:

"Given the small percentage of eligible voters in this country who actually vote, I would question whether there really are more Republicans than Democrats. "Just the number of Democrats who were apparently blocked from voting in Florida in 2000 indicates that there may be more Democrats than Republicans. Even some who want to vote are not able to. I am still so offended that the problems in Florida were never properly addressed."

The Florida Democratic Party more than made up for that by importing voters from New York, and eating chads.

"Add some manipulation here and there and a Supreme Court that plays along and you have a Republican majority. Not a real one. An apparent one."

By "manipulation" do you mean rule of law as specified in the Constitution? I do realize that these are alien terms to a Dim-ocrat.

"We will disgree about the constitution. I think the citizens should have the sole right in some cases to decide what "law" is in this state."

Great idea! I'll start with the laws pertaining to murder, and take out a some Democrats!!

"In over 170 instances, the citizens said "no" and the problem may be that the citizens haven't said "no" enough."

I'd be willing to bet you don't say "no."

"I think you hit the nail on the head. We need to be careful in our reaction to an overzealous Republican governor. Not the first one we've had. But with a little luck and enough Democrats at the polls next November, the last one."

Like I told Karl-T, better concentrate on getting out the dead vote for the Democratic Party! You make this too easy.

So, you can't stand the use of the term "Dim-ocrat" instead of Democrat, eh? Another free speech Dim-ocrat show his colors!

I'd expect a higher level of debate. I was trying to keep you from making yourself look like an idiot, but so much for that.