On Tuesday night I was one of approximately 150 who attended a debate in Huntsville about rewriting Alabama’s 1901 constitution.  The debate was sponsored by a local chapter of ACCR and pitted Lenora Pate, who supports a constitutional convention, against Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks.  It was a very informative debate with both participants given ample time to make their arguments - quite congenially I might add - as well as answer questions from the audience.

Pate did a very admirable job representing her position.  She came across as authentic and idealistic - two traits required of anyone who is advocating populist, (little D) democratic change.  She did not, in my opinion, make a strong enough case about why a constitutional convention is the best way to fix the flaws that we all admit exist with the current constitution to win me over.

One of Pate’s logical faux pas was her assertion that the 1901 is a “post Civil War” constitution in a “post 9/11″ time.  I thought the statement smacked of something one might expect George Bush to say as a reason to usurp some element of our federal constitution.  Also, by Pate’s logic we should ditch our federal constitution as well since it was written in a pre 9/11 era.  She did almost make me laugh out loud when she was listing various groups of people by saying, “Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and otherwise.”  Otherwise?  I’ve never heard of them.  Do we now have to call liberals “otherwise” because they eschew being labeled as liberals?

Mo Brooks was, well, Mo Brooks.  One point that Brooks frequently makes - and last night was no exception - is that we get the government we deserve in a representative republic.  It is naive of us to assume that after decades of electing legislators who do not do the bidding of the people that the electorate would magically perk up and elect honorable, decent delegates.  I would like to think it would happen, but I’m bound by the chains of reality to believe otherwise.  Worse yet, the legislators currently in power will most certainly insert poison pills into the legislation, as they have done many times in the past.  The special interests that put them in power will make sure that the deck is stacked in their favor - that is, of course, in the highly unlikely event that they even let the legislation pass.

Furthermore, just imagine how difficult it will be to get voters to ratify whatever document comes out of the convention.  Right or wrong, blocs of voters will fixate on individual elements they view as bad in an otherwise acceptable document.  And special interest groups will make sure of that.

Brooks instead suggested that an article by article rewrite was preferable as it is less acrimonious and therefore more likely to end in success.  He also pleaded for Initiative and Referendum many times as a surrogate for a convention as such a plan would empower citizens and enable us to bypass a non-compliant legislature.  I was pleasantly surprised to find that Brooks is a vocal proponent of I&R.  I find it to be an acceptable, and more likely, alternative to a full blown constitutional rewrite.

Brooks called the entire process or pursing a constitutional convention an “exercise in futility.”  I think a perfect example of that is home rule.  I don’t know too many people opposed to increased home rule (both Brooks and Pate are in favor).  I know who does oppose it: the legislature.  They have the power and they would be loathe to relinquish it.  If we can’t even motivate our legislature to rewrite an individual article to increase home rule - something that many people support - how can those same people be expected to allow us to vote on a constitutional convention that they most certainly know would result in greater home rule in addition to other provisions that may strip some of their power?

As a general, philosophical aside: You can’t engage in such a debate without hearing people from both sides complaining about special interests.  You want to know how to reduce the influence of special interests?  Reduce taxes and let people keep more of what they earn.  It is that simple.  Money is power.  The more power we transfer to a small cabal of elected officials, the more special interests will follow that money/power.  To think that you can eliminate or even reduce the influence of special interests with silly rules or campaign finance limits is ridiculous.  Virtuous, but ridiculous.

As always, if you have any arguments my mind is not made up.  Speak up.  There are still some points I would like clarified.  I was hoping that the moderator, John Ehinger of the Huntsville Times, would pose the question I emailed him earlier in the day.  I’m sure it was a minor oversight on his part - I sure have my fair share - (of course, maybe Karl Rove told him to not ask the question…) but I would like a thoughtful response.  Here goes:

One of the six reasons ACCR lists on its website for rewriting the constitution is that the current one “hinders economic development.”  Exactly what types of economic development efforts are hindered (in plain English)?  Cite specific examples.  Does Alabama’s strong economy with low unemployment somewhat mute ACCR’s argument?

Also, the current legislation states that the same lobbyist rules apply to delegates “except to the extent” it “establishes more restrictive requirements.”  It goes on to say that “delegates shall be prohibited from receiving a thing of value in association with his or her duties as a delegate.”  What constitutes “a thing of value?”  Can a lobbyist buy a meal for a delegate?  Pate said that lobbyists would not be able to spend money on delegates, but I think that is predicated on how the state Ethics Commission would define “a thing of value.”  A pair of tickets to the Iron Bowl most certainly would be prohibited, but what about a steak?

You can read the Times’ article about the debate here.  WHNT was also covering the event (no technical glitches that I could tell).  They interviewed me and included a few seconds of my response.  If you’re extremely bored you can view the clip by going to their website and clicking on the constitutional reform clip on the main page.  I’ll post a static link to the video if one becomes available.

Related content:

This entry was posted by Brian on Wednesday, February 27th, 2008 at 9:30 pm and is filed under Alabama, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Please note the copyright policy.