[Reactionary]

Just about what I'd expect from the Anniston 'Red' Star...

[prden]

Which candidates for office support Constitutional Reform?

[Reactionary]

Just about every candidate supports "Constitutional Reform".

You may want to rephrase your question: which candidates support a Constitutional Convention (per ACCR) or "article by article" reform. Also try to get a committment from a candidate to 'champion' your choice instead of the more passive 'support'. Believe it or not, some politicians will tell you they 'support' something but have no intention of following through... There are politicans who won't even vote for legislation they sponsored...

[prden]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

Just about every candidate supports "Constitutional Reform".

You may want to rephrase your question: which candidates support a Constitutional Convention (per ACCR) or "article by article" reform. Also try to get a committment from a candidate to 'champion' your choice instead of the more passive 'support'. Believe it or not, some politicians will tell you they 'support' something but have no intention of following through... There are politicans who won't even vote for legislation they sponsored...

Good idea! Thanks. Do you know if there has been any success to date chipping away ("article by article")?

[Reactionary]

Yes. The 'Judicial' section of the Alabama Constitution was revised 'article-by-article'. Of course, that just added pages to 'the big book' - you don't take out the old pages but you do supercede them (just like the US Constitution - Prohibition is still in there but superceded by Repeal). That's why when people complain about the racist language etc I don't pay much attention - none of that still applies, having been superceded by Federal and State laws prohibiting discrimination.

prden - we may not agree on everything, but I'm pleased that you're engaged in politics. I wish more people would pay attention.

[prden]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

Yes. The 'Judicial' section of the Alabama Constitution was revised 'article-by-article'. Of course, that just added pages to 'the big book' - you don't take out the old pages but you do supercede them (just like the US Constitution - Prohibition is still in there but superceded by Repeal). That's why when people complain about the racist language etc I don't pay much attention - none of that still applies, having been superceded by Federal and State laws prohibiting discrimination.

prden - we may not agree on everything, but I'm pleased that you're engaged in politics. I wish more people would pay attention.

So--why not just start over with a new constitution? I keep hearing "special interests" but I'm not buying it. Let's just throw the "big book" out the window and write the best state constitution in the union.

[Reactionary]

Why not start over with a new US Constitution (as Obama wants - an affirmative Bill of Rights that says what the Govt will do FOR you).

Generally, not enough people think that the resulting convention-written state Constitution would be any better than the "big book". Plus, the people who are agitating for a new constitution are mostly liberals - unless they can 'moderate' their positions and bring in some conservatives then the convention is going nowhere - it stays a partisan issue.

One problem is that the proponents of a 'new' constitution already have a 'mock' or draft constitution ready - the convention would be expected to revise that draft unstead of developing "the best constitution in the nation". To prove my point, look at the proposed timelines for the convention - it's barely enough time to read the draft constitution, much less fully understand or amend the contents. The fix is in - people intuitively understand that and don't like it.

More on the 'mock' or draft constitution:

Your Comments Welcome on Draft Constitution | Doc's Political Parlor

More on your original question of which legislators' support the convention:

Constitutional convention on the ropes? | Doc's Political Parlor

Instructive comment from that post:

"I never want to see the likes of Roger Bedford and Hank Sanders writing a constitution."

[prden]

Thanks for the links. Very interesting.

I would love to see conservatives get involved. It seems to me they would have the most to win.

Meanwhile, I'm going to keep voting "no" on every constitutional amendment until this monster is tamed. Local rule!

[prden]

The Randoph County Leader had a very interesting editorial suggesting that Alabamans keep voting "no" every time a constitutional amendment comes to a vote. Good idea. Someday maybe someone will get us a workable constitution that puts local control in the hands of the people.

Check it out: http://www.therandolphleader.com/articles/2010/06/07/opinion/editorials/630-voting%20no.txt (broken link)

[LongtimeBravesFan]

Originally Posted by Reactionary

Yes. The 'Judicial' section of the Alabama Constitution was revised 'article-by-article'. Of course, that just added pages to 'the big book' - you don't take out the old pages but you do supercede them (just like the US Constitution - Prohibition is still in there but superceded by Repeal). That's why when people complain about the racist language etc I don't pay much attention - none of that still applies, having been superceded by Federal and State laws prohibiting discrimination.

prden - we may not agree on everything, but I'm pleased that you're engaged in politics. I wish more people would pay attention.

There was an amendment a few years ago that came up for vote that would have officially erased the old racist language. I voted against it (I think it failed) because I don't like the idea of erasing things from the constitution, no matter how bad it might have been. Its not like anybody ever reads it and says "Ooooh, look at mean old Alabama".