Our Opinion: Majority rules: A basic tenet

Saturday, February 19, 2011

Majority rules.

The concept is an underpinning of democratic society.

We generally support the concept, although we also acknowledge reasonable exceptions.

An exception in the form of a constitutional amendment has been proposed by Rep. Scott Sifton, D-Affton. His amendment would require a two-thirds legislative majority to change a voter-approved law within two years of adoption. It would require a four-sevenths majority during the next two years.

The likely launch pad for his idea is legislative debate to repeal or alter provisions of Proposition B, approved in November with 51.6 percent of the statewide vote.

The law tightening restrictions on dog breeders is on its way to contending for the title of receiving the most legislative attention after enactment.

The battle ground for the voter-approved law has moved to the Legislature because lawmakers are empowered to repeal or alter it. In contrast, amending the constitution requires a statewide vote.

Since Proposition B’s approval, opponents have continued to press their arguments that the law: is unnecessary; unduly restricts the dog-breeding industry; and marks an initial step toward limiting livestock agriculture.

After the vote, opponents added to their arguments, contending: voters didn’t understand the ramifications of Proposition B; and voters in many rural counties rejected the proposition, despite its statewide victory.

Proponents have countered that their votes were informed and have rallied behind the basic tenet that majority rules.

We believe that tenet has served us well.

Consequently, we are not in favor of Sifton’s proposed amendment, even though we acknowledge the concept of majority rules — in the form of Proposition B — is under attack in the Legislature.

We encouraged voters to reject Proposition B in November. Subsequently, however, we encouraged lawmakers to respect the majority decision.

No law is perfect. Many require tweaking over time.

But a majority of Missourians has spoken. The law voters enacted deserves a reasonable test of time before they are silenced or shouted down.

More like this story

Pcamp 2 years, 3 months ago

The Concept of Majority rules is a wonderful idea but seldom of any real value. The majority can be amazingly ill informed, misinformed, or even acting purely on fear often to the detriment of the common welfare. Examples in US and world history abound, segregation, and racial discrimination was supported by the majority. Extermination and dislocation of the native populations of the Americas was supported by the majority. Stripping the Spanish/Mexican populations of the southwestern states of their property rights was supported by the majority of voters. These examples are but a few where the wisdom and determination of honorable elected officials, and dedicated activists changed the laws, usually against a strong majority opposition. These people of conscience were able to make this nation a much better place to live. So Majority Rules is in truth a noble idea, but the reality is often far different.

shelleyp 2 years, 3 months ago

The concept is majority rules with minority rights. We have the third leg of our government, the judicial branch, to ensure minority rights are met.

I've long encouraged large scale dog breeders to sue in court if they feel Proposition B abrogates their rights. The state legislature just disregarding our vote in order to placate special interests, is not the right way.

What we have now is the tyranny of the few over the many.

ken 2 years, 3 months ago

Why burden the judicial system when the legislature can fix this problem now?

shelleyp 2 years, 3 months ago

Because nothing needs to be "fixed", and doing so makes this a case of minority rules without majority rights.

Frankly, I doubt a lawsuit would succeed, lawsuits about dog breeding laws have failed in other states. But if the people think their rights have been abrogated, go for it.

It's preferable than getting special interests to influence representatives into overriding our vote.

ken 2 years, 3 months ago

Even the legislators in the yes-vote counties KNOW that something needs to be done with Prop B. You are just in denial. Even HSMO's vet admitted it needed changed, so male dogs can breed more than twice in 18 months. Perfect? No. The other opponents of change, including HSMO president wouldn't even admit to knowing what 'domestic' means. What was that about? They don't even understand the language themselves, and it doesn't need fixing? Something sure smells about Prop B and the HSUS.

shelleyp 2 years, 3 months ago

Actually, more than one Yes district representative has repudiated their support of the bills. I expect even some of the No districts to start backing out, when they realize people and publications, like this one, while not being necessarily for Proposition B, are more against the undermining of our vote.

The only real change that anyone has ever proposed about Proposition B -- a modification, not a gutting--is to change the wording to state that only female dogs may be restricted to breeding every 18 months.

If the reps want to put through a change to make this correction, the Prop B people would be more than amenable to this change.

What they did, though, is completely remove every Prop B provision and then attempt to deceive the people by calling it a "modification".

ken 2 years, 3 months ago

So a revision is okay now (never mind 'the people spoke' and 'the will of the people'), just limited to what HSUS wants? Only one correction allowed? How about the yearly fee for Bark Alert and the licensing fee increases? Are you against that? How about eliminating the unfettered access that is dangerous to puppies and pregnant dogs? How about eliminating the cap of 50 dogs that is unconstitutional? How about eliminating the unreasonable space requirements that will bankrupt breeders? How about adding an exception for newborn puppies and mother dogs in the temperature regs?

shelleyp 2 years, 3 months ago

Unreasonable space requirements? Are you serious?

puppies.burningbird.net/comparing-old-laws-new/space-considerations

I'm adding notes about the other favorite topics, too. And I also covered this in an article at the Missourian:

columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/01/14/guest-commentary-separating-myths-and-facts-prop-b/

There is no yearly fee for bark alert, either associated with the Prop b repeal bills, or with Prop B.

Unconstitutional? Like limits on numbers of people that can be in a restaurant at a time? Like limits on how much lead you can put into paint? Like limits on how cheese has to be processed, so it doesn't develop salmonella? Like restrictions on how much banks can charge for overdraft protection? Like restrictions on construction of tires for safety? Like restrictions on car manufacturers to ensure the cars are safer?

It's called a business regulation. And if the breeders really felt they have a case, let them take it to court, like other businesses do.

ken 2 years, 3 months ago

SERIOUS AS A HEART ATTACK! The space requirements and elimination of kennel design that is BETTER and MORE SANITARY are TOTALLY OUTRAGEOUS AND DESIGNED BY HSUS TO ELIMINATE THE GOOD, LICENSED KENNELS WHILE DOING NOTHING ABOUT THE BAD ONES. Unconstitutional like limiting rights to own property. Yes, dogs are property, not little humans in fur suits.
I am surprised you would give a link to such a bogus opinion piece. Myths and facts was riddled with lies, and one of the most deceptive pieces I have read on Prop B anywhere.

jeffcitygirl 2 years, 2 months ago

Great editorial but what's a "Marjority" as indicated in the headline....lol. For a newspaper you all make some fun mistakes.

online_editor 2 years, 2 months ago

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. It was correct in the newspaper, so the typo occurred exclusively here. I should have seen it when I first saw this headline the following day. Instead, the use of two colons on the same line drew my attention and bothered me (in print, "our opinion" is on a separate line so only one colon is used there), but I decided to let that bit of unconventional usage ride. And I missed the obvious. Argh. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune