[sleepless in Bham]

Originally Posted by HsvCity!

The Democrats (Dixiecrats) of that era are not of the same party as the National Democratic Party of today. In fact, George Wallace was a Democrat at one time before becoming a Republican. The Republican party of Lincoln were more aligned with the Democratic Party we have today than what we had back then. So, the Sounthern Dixiecrats who governed Alabama from 1870's - 1986 are essentially the same as the Republicans who govern the state today. Debate?

A case can be made for what you said, but George Wallace was never a republican.

[denofhc]

I see no compelling reason to make the Constitution problem a partisan issue. This monstrosity affects all Alabamans--Republican and Democrat. "We the people" could do better by starting over (or at least making some major revisions). Come on--if the people support this it will happen--Republican or Democrat.

[sleepless in Bham]

Originally Posted by denofhc

I see no compelling reason to make the Constitution problem a partisan issue. This monstrosity affects all Alabamans--Republican and Democrat. "We the people" could do better by starting over (or at least making some major revisions). Come on--if the people support this it will happen--Republican or Democrat.

But conservatives fear that it could lead to tax increases.

[denofhc]

Originally Posted by sleepless in Bham

But conservatives fear that it could lead to tax increases.

What on earth is the connection between constitutional reform and tax increases? That simply does not make sense!

[sleepless in Bham]

Originally Posted by denofhc

What on earth is the connection between constitutional reform and tax increases? That simply does not make sense!

Because the state's tax code is written in the constitution. Any proposed tax increase over 1% has to go before a vote of the people. In a new constitution tax increases of any amount could be passed in the state legislature with any kind of vote of the people.

[HsvCity!]

Originally Posted by sleepless in Bham

A case can be made for what you said, but George Wallace was never a republican.

I apologize for incorrectly stating that George Wallace was a republican. I had to re-read the forum article where I initially got the wrong information.

[denofhc]

Originally Posted by sleepless in Bham

Because the state's tax code is written in the constitution. Any proposed tax increase over 1% has to go before a vote of the people. In a new constitution tax increases of any amount could be passed in the state legislature with any kind of vote of the people.

The idea of a re-write is to make the Constitution practical and put the power in the hands of the people. Why couldn't taxes be handled justly? Take the power out of Montgomery and put it in the hands of the people. It's called democracy--and it works.

[Reactionary]

denofhc = "Why couldn't taxes be handled justly? Take the power out of Montgomery..."

As 'sleepless' noted, in the current Constitution "Any proposed tax increase over 1% has to go before a vote of the people". The people tend to vote NO to tax increases. That's called democracy.

[sleepless in Bham]

Originally Posted by denofhc

The idea of a re-write is to make the Constitution practical and put the power in the hands of the people. Why couldn't taxes be handled justly? Take the power out of Montgomery and put it in the hands of the people. It's called democracy--and it works.

I agree there is too much power centralized in Montgomery, and its more of an hinderance than a benefit. Home rule for counties should be the top issue when it comes to a constitutional re-write.