A question for Missouri lawmakers: Why do you believe the laws you make are insufficient?
Legislators must lack confidence in laws or they wouldn't repeatedly propose constitutional amendments to guarantee "rights" already outlined in state statute.
The most recent offender is freshman Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake St. Louis, who is asking lawmakers to support a proposed constitutional amendment to guarantee that parents have a fundamental right to raise and educate their children."
If lawmakers approve, the constitutional amendment would go before voters in a future election.
Onder cited concerns from as near as northwest Missouri and as far as Europe. The exceptions to the rule of parental rights, however, are few and far between.
If the measure gets to the ballot, it likely will pass. Like other recent amendments, these proposals are popular.
A problem is they also are unnecessary and potentially problematic.
Remember Amendment 5, the gun rights proposal passed by Missourians in August?
A court case earlier this year revealed the unintended mischief the gun rights amendment may have caused. A March 2 News Tribune story reported: "... a St. Louis City circuit judge ruled Friday that the (gun rights) amendment changed the state's law prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms. ... Before voters approved Amendment 5 last summer, the law clearly said (a felon previously convicted of a weapons charge) couldn't have a gun, because of his felony conviction."
What prompts lawmakers to propose constitutional amendments to replace existing laws that are working quite well?
There are a number of possible motivations:
• A proponent firmly believes an amendment is necessary and desirable. This, however, demonstrates a lack of confidence in the business of lawmaking.
• A lawmaker wants to duck a tough issue and the amendment process kicks it to the voters. A problem with this practice is it eventually renders laws and lawmaking obsolete, relegating decisions to voters.
• A proponent hopes to score political points by guaranteeing popular rights the people already enjoy. Such a motivation would be entirely self-serving and despicable.
• A lawmaker wants a popular issue on the ballot to attract more fellow partisans or like-minded voters to the polls.
We reiterate something we wrote in this forum last year. "Amendment-itis is a dangerous affliction."
It permits legislators to transfer the tough discipline of governing, it exacerbates political grandstanding, it may be entirely self-serving and it's duplicative and potentially dangerous.
It will continue, however, until voters see these amendments for what they are and reject them at the ballot box.