The REAL motivation behind the call for a Constitutional Convention
The hearing on Brad Avakian's deep thought to hold a Constitutional Convention has just adjourned, and I am hoping that my blood pressure quickly lowers, because hearing the deep thinkers like Charlie Hinkle and Hans Linde complain that the Oregon Constitution is a "mess" has really pissed me off.
Hinkle, Linde and James Westwood all blamed the initiative for making the Oregon Constitution a "mess".
All three complained (especially Linde) that the Oregon Constitution looks more like a statute book than a constitution. Linde has always argued that there are certain things that don't belong in a constitution. To elitists like Linde and Hinkle, the things that don't belong in the constitution are the things they don't agree with.
Let's get one thing straight: the initiative is not the reason the Oregon Constitution is a "mess". Measure 5 (1990) came about not on its own, but because the dimwits in the Oregon Legislature couldn't provide property tax relief that Oregonians had been begging for during the entire decade of the 1980s.
Measure 7 (2000) didn't come about as a result of a crazy, last-minute scheme. Senate Bill 100 (1973) promised property owners compensation for the loss of land value due to Oregon's crazy land use statutes. Several sessions during the 1980s considered the issue of compensation, only to be blocked by special interests. Kitzhaber vetoed a minor compensation measure in 1995 because he was bought and paid for by the enviros who, in turn, hate property owners. MEasure 7 (2000) came about because of THE LEGISLATURE'S INEPTITUDE!!!!
Got that Linde, Westwood and Hinkle: CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS ARE ADOPTED BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE FAILS TO ACT!!!!!!!
In other words: DON'T BLAME THE INITIATIVE, BLAME THE IDIOTS IN THE LEGISLATURE WHO FAILED TO ACT!!!!!
C'mon, you guys think you are smarter than the rest of us, you would think you guys could figure this much out.
As to Linde's point (that there are certain things that don't "belong" in the constitution) it begs the question: who gets to decide whether something "belongs" in the constitution?
The Supreme Court? Hans Linde? What about a commission of elitists who think they are smarter than the rest of us? (more on this option later)
Why are Linde's ideas simply moronic? Because you know that Linde doesn't like anything that even hints of a conservative ideology being in the constitution. If he had his way, Linde would take private property protections, gun ownership protections, tax limits, traditional marriage protections, crime victims rights and the like out of the constitution because those issue conflict with Linde's ideology, and therefore don't belong in the constitution.
Finally, Westwood addressed who might be on either the constitutional commission or participate in the constitutional convention. You know what names he mentioned?
Dave Frohnmayer
Betty Roberts
Charlie Hinkle
Jim Westwood
Don McIntire
Hans Linde
Norma Paulus
With the exception of McIntire, the remaining suggestions are nothing more than elitists who hate conservatives and the conservative movement, and they would all support changes to the Oregon Constitution that would strip away our rights.
They hate the initiative process (Today, Linde, Westwood and Hinkle all suggested taking away the people's right to amend THE PEOPLE'S constitution) and they hate grass roots groups who use the initiative process to make real changes in Oregon.
THAT is the real motivation behind the call for a constitutional convention.
I have a suggestion for Hinkle, Westwood and Linde. How about adding these names to your list:
Dave Hunnicutt
Kelly Clark
Ross Day
Kevin Mannix
Jason Atkinson
Ed Fitch
Ed Trompke
Jack Roberts
Dale Riddle
Jim Huffman
I could go for those guys on the commission/convention.
Posts
6 comments:
Dave Frohnmayer
Betty Roberts
Charlie Hinkle
Jim Westwood
Don McIntire
Hans Linde
Norma Paulus
McIntire would be wasting his time sitting in a group like this. Two RINO's, Frohnmayer & Paulus, the rest I won't waste my time labeling, you know what they are.
I don't think a constitutional convention would be a bad idea.
Look at the Oregon Constitution. The thing is a mess.
Although in the end i will admit this is most due to preference.
I prefer Constitutions to be kept short and simple.
The idea of a review of the constitution at regular intervals (say every 10-20 years) by a citizen committee makes good sense. However, as with everything else in this state, the citizen committee would not be composed of a real cross-section of Oregonians, but instead would be made up of the who's who of the left, meaning the needs of the average citizen would be ignored. The idea that Dave Frohnmayer, Hans Linde, Norma Paulus or Charlie Hinkle give a damn about how the law (constitutional or statutory) affects the husband and wife with two kids who are trying to make ends meet is ludicrous. I would rather have the constitutional review committee chosen through the jury rolls. At least that way you'd get a fair cross section of Oregon.
I am so sick of you bubbas calling anyone with a college degree an "elitist." Knowing how to drink beer, deer hunt, drive a four wheeler, or slop some pigs are all great skills - but hardely make you qualiified for public office.
Bubba newsflash - milk and gas costs $4/gallon, the housing market stinks, and as of today we will most likely be in a bear market. Sorry, but I want someone who went farther than the 8th grade in school trying to figure out how to get us out of this mess!
Anon 10:28-
Thank you for proving my point. Your arrogance explains why people like you are elitists. You obviously think that people who do not agree with you must be uneducated "Bubbas".
I am willing to bet that I am far more educated that you.
The difference is that I value the thoughts and values of all Oregonians, not just those who think they are smarter than the rest of us.
I agree with the columbia county kid, we need a true cross-section of Oregonians to draft the Constitution, not the same elitists who got us in this mess in the first place.
I would encourage you to actually listen to the hearing. Charlie Hinkle says that efforts to create a new constitution would be "futile" and otherwise goes on to inform the committee that this idea is a big waste of time.
Post a Comment