I do not commend your amendment process

Last August, when I went to vote in the General Primary Election, my ballot had numerous amendment proposals to vote for or against. This November 4, we will again have more amendments to consider. Good or bad, I am voting against all of them, strictly for constitutional reasons.

I have heard from many politicians and even friends of mine, who lay claim to being true believers in the Constitution of the United States. They profess their loyalty to that document, and to the Founding Fathers who wrote it. They further state unequivocally, they have great insight into the intent of the Founding Fathers, and that they wish to see both the Unites States, and Missouri, follow in these historical footsteps.

There's the rub for me. In Missouri we have, in my opinion, strayed from the original intent of the United States Constitution. The differences are obvious, and to me represent a dangerous trend for all Missouri citizens, regardless of an individual's political leanings.

I will not try to convince you that I am by any means a constitutional expert. Having said that, I did teach American History, American Government, civics, and Missouri History, when I was a high school teacher back in the 1980s.

From that experience, I leaned the following. First, there was no class that was less popular, or considered more boring to the student body, than those dealing with government. I dare say that most of you readers have memories of a similar civics class.

On the positive side, I can assure you that after teaching these classes to four to five classes a day for close to 10 years, I learned more about our federal and state governments, than I ever thought possible.

Still, I consider myself a simple citizen, who votes in every election, and who tries to look at each candidate, and ballot initiative, with a keen interest in making our government better.

Here are my issues with the way we, as Missourians, are being asked to vote for amendments to our state constitution. They are, I think, not only valid, but very serious in the consequences they could lead to.

Currently, there are three ways an amendment can be placed upon our ballot for voter approval. The first (which is the one that is almost always used) is for either the state House of Representatives or the state Senate, to propose an amendment. It must then be approved by a simple majority by both houses, and then it is placed on the next general election ballot.

The other two methods are very complicated, and have not been used in years. One is to have an initiative of signatures to have an amendment proposal placed on the ballot. The third method is through a Constitutional Convention (every few years the ballot includes a question -- should there be a convention called?).

The process for these last two methods are complicated and, as stated, has not been used in years. Regardless of the method used, once the amendment has been proposed through any of the above methods, it goes directly to the people.

At this point, the people decide with a simple majority, if they want the amendment or not. Well folks, I have an issue with that. This is not a "Homecoming Queen" contest. It is a serious vote, to determine if we should amend our state constitution. It is about as far removed from the ideas of the Founding Fathers, as one can get!

The truth of the matter is this. The Founding Fathers created a Constitution that has worked reasonably well for over two centuries. It has managed to survive with only 27 total Amendments, and the first 10 of those were the Bill of Rights. So in essence, we have only had 17 real changes to the original Constitution.

We have not had any Amendments since 1992, and that was an amazing one. It was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, and was not approved for 202 years.

There are many reasons why we don't have many Amendments, but the most obvious are the severe requirements. First, there must be two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an Amendment, or two-thirds of the state Legislatures or state constitutional conventions. None of this simple majority nonsense like we have in Missouri.

As if the Founding Fathers were not sure that this two-thirds majority plan would slow down any changes, they put in the additional rule, that it required three-fourths of the state legislatures or constitutional conventions, to ratify an Amendment.

Congress has even gone one step further to slow down the process. Most of the time, they put a time limit on how long the legislatures or conventions have to approve an Amendment (usually 7 years). Some of you may remember the Equal Rights Amendment back in the '70s that lacked one vote of passing the three-fourths majority before the deadline.

Why is this important? It's important to me and I think it should be to you, whether you are a Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, or independent.

Our state of Missouri Constitution was originally accepted when we became a state, because it closely resembled the same types of articles and values as the United States Constitution.

We have gone a long way in a different direction. It should never be easy to make changes to our Constitution. Time has shown that the United States Constitution has flourished without being changed often.

Here's my simple suggestion to any citizen regardless of your politics. Unless you are absolutely sure that the proposed Amendment on a ballot is a good and necessary thing, VOTE NO!

If we want a real amendment to the Missouri Constitution, I wish our Legislature would propose a return to the same process as the United States Constitution. If it's good enough for that document it should be good enough for us.