An unpredictable concoction may result when partisan politics mix with the constitutional separation of powers.
A recent example is a proposal by legislative leaders - currently Republicans - to allow them to intervene in court cases challenging the constitutionality of state law when the attorney general - currently a Democrat - fails to do so.
This proposal follows voter approval in November of Amendment 10, which empowers lawmakers to override gubernatorial budget freezes and withholds.
According to a story in the Feb. 18 News Tribune, however, lawmakers continue to debate the extent and effective date of the Amendment 10 powers. To use a variant of former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's infamous phrase, we passed this bill and still don't know what's in it.
So, what will it mean if we permit Missouri's Senate President Pro Tem and Speaker of the House to "intervene" in constitutional court cases when they're dissatisfied with the action, or inaction, of the state's top lawyer, the attorney general?
The disconnect between lawmakers and the attorney general has been exacerbated recently by differing legal approaches by federal and state authorities on two issues - immigration and same-sex marriage.
Republican Sen. Kurt Schaefer of Columbia recently proposed a resolution contending an influx of illegal aliens under President Obama's immigration policies is "contrary to the rule of law" and "it is the duty of the attorney general of this state to defend and protect the rule of law of Missouri and of the United States."
The proposal to permit legislative leaders to intervene was prompted, in part, by the attorney general's failure to challenge a federal court ruling permitting same-sex marriage. Missouri's law and a voter-approved constitutional amendment define marriage only as the union of one man and one woman.
State reactions to federal pronouncements are nothing new. Remember the failed proposal to criminalize federal agents who might attempt to enforce certain federal gun laws or the legislative heave-ho of Common Core education standards, which were not even instigated by the federal government?
Both the federal and state constitutional provisions creating a separation of powers among different branches of government, and the system of checks and balances, are time-honored, fundamental principles of governing. That doesn't mean they are immutable, but it does mean changes must not be cavalier.
Politicians are temporary; they come and go. A constitution is a lasting blueprint for governing.
Improving government - not political one-upmanship - always must be the motivation and goal for changing the basic blueprint.