What Is Appropriate for Constitutional Amendments?
Do our schools still teach classes in Civics?
The principle taught in the past was that a Constitution is supposed to govern the PROCESS by which laws are made — how the legislators are elected (or removed), how bills are submitted and approved, and what government officials are charged with enforcement or interpretation. The actual CONTENT of the laws is the concern of our elected representatives. That is their job.
Thus, no proposal should amend the Constitution if, instead, it could be enacted by legislative action. The issues of hunting rights, abortion, marijuana use, bullet trains, and the care of pregnant pigs should never have been issues for constitutional amendments in the past.
Regarding the upcoming election: A change in the homestead exemption rules could be covered by the Florida representatives as legislative action, but it would require our legislators to go on record as being in favor of or opposed to the change. They are unwilling to do so. Instead, they hide behind a cloak of cowardice and offer a constitutional amendment for “decision by the people”.
The first question any voter should ask when considering an amendment is not “Is this a good idea?” but rather “Is this proposal appropriate for a change to the Constitution, or could it be handled by legislation using the existing process?” Regardless of whether one is in favor of or opposed to the homestead amendment, it should be rejected as a matter of principle.
This article was written by Mike Behr. If you want to make your own opinion submission, go to midbaynews.com/opinion.
