Comments about ‘Utah: Amendments to U.S. Constitution pushed’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 1 2011 4:11 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
On the other hand
Spanish Fork, UT

Wow. Gayle Ruzicka and I agree on something. Who knew?

open minded
Lehi, UT

Is this hypocrisy or lies? These people claim that the Federal Constitution is too big and yet they continually want to add to Utah's constitution.
Every year we are voting on amendments to Utah's constitution and most of those amendments increase the legislatures power over us.
Example, the Eagle Forum has convinced Senator Buttars to run SBJ 1- amendment giving the State more power over local school boards. These people want to take away our local control over schools and force their values on beliefs on every child in the state. They do not want anyone to present any ideas in our schools that could help kids see the world differently than the Eagle Forum does. That way our children are indoctrinated into being good little LDS conservative Tea Party members. No room for freedom of thought or arguing against those views.
These legislators need to reign in their own power grabbing ways before worrying about the Federal government.

PeanutGallery
Salt Lake City, UT

A constitutional convention is a bad idea, especially in modern times. Today fewer people have a true understanding and appreciation of American freedom, and more people promote more government to control other people. A constitutional convention is too unpredictable, and would leave the entire Constitution wide open for mischief pushed by radical activist groups with lots of marketing money.

MamaFirst
Saint George, UT

A constitutional convention is one of the most important checks and balances we have on the federal goverment which is wholly out of control. As far as being afraid that they'll just tack on any amendments they wish... I say this. If you are afraid, get out of politics and the whole political arena, cause this ain't no place for scaredy cats. We are facing SERIOUS problems in our country, and we need people with vision and fortitude to see it through. If you're "scared" go hide under a rock.

As a tea party person myself, and a very active member of the LDS community, I also completely concur with open-minded. The state needs to get OUT of our local schools. Let locals take care of themselves. It IS hypocrisy to tell the federal government to loosed its leash when the state government is trying to tighten theirs.

GWB
West Jordan, UT

Ah, isn't it kind of odd that the Party who says we should adhere to the Constitution and the Founder's intent doesn't actually like what it says and wants to change it to match their vision rather than what the founders wrote?

We have people wanting to Amend the Cosntitution to remove birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment.

We have people wanting to repeal the 17th Amendment so that the legislature gets to pick your Senators because they don't like who the voters pick.

Now this.

And all the people pushing for the changes are Conservatives, who claim that the US Constitution was divinely inspired. So, I ask them, if it was divinely inspired, why did the divine inspirer not see fit to incorporate your changes at the time of it's creation or amendment?

My2Cents
Kearns, UT

Why would anyone believe that a balanced budget amendment to the constitution will make any difference in how government spends money? Our Congress violates so many constitutional laws now, what's one more. If our leaders do not use common sense to control spending the implosion of government is inevitable. I would rather have an imploded government than lose our constitution, the people will then have the power to rebuild.

To call for a constitutional amendments at this point in time of strife the nation is suffering will only bring forth some very radical and improper amendments. Mostly to strip citizens of more rights and give government more powers. We the people could be stripped from the constitution and replaced with we the government.

Many in congress has already said that our constitution is outdated and not applicable to present day world power concepts of government. They want to replace our constitution of the people for the people with a world powers document creating a single power over all the world, and burn our Declaration of Independence. A convention would open the door to the annihilation of the United States of America and creation of a one world government.

Esquire
Springville, UT

Idiotic ideas that will shut the government down and spit in the face of Abraham Lincoln and the sacrifice we made in the Civil War. And a constitutional convention will put at risk our freedoms. How do you control a constitutional convention? It invites chaos. Instead of looking for easy solutions, our elected leaders need to sit down and go to work and make the hard decisions. The problems won't go away just by changing the Constitution they claim to love. Grow up!

coachcarter
Cedar City, UT

Such hypocrisy..Utahns want ''ammend'' the US Constitution by taking things away from it, while at the same time taking more and more freedoms away by continually adding to the Utah Constitution?

The most ridiculous example is this newest development. Utah was one of the biggest fighters in the repeal of ''Obamacare'', yet they want to make it law that every college student has maternity coverage?

Talk about hypocrites...Disgusting Utah

wkdespain
Holladay, Utah

Amending the constitution does not take a constitutional convention. Replacing the constitution takes a constitutional convention. If you want a balanced budget amendment, get the states and congress to agree, otherwise the "baby goes out with the bath water". Let the republican form of government work.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

I like the repeal amendment. Not a bad idea.
I will have to think about obtaining a majority of states to approve an increase in the debt ceiling.

How about making all congressmen employees of the state they represent? Their salaries and benefits are set by the state legislatures. This would end the practice of giving themselves raises and remind them that they work for us.

Oh, and how about this idea for campaign finance reform: If you can't vote for the candidate, you can't give them money! My congressman is supposed to represent the people of my district; not a radical environmental group in Calif. or some corporation or union somewhere. Only registered voters can donate and then only to people they can vote for. Unions and corporations don't vote so they can't give.

Of course once you put such campaign finance reform in place you would have to have a media malpractice law or the media would determine the result of every election. I would make it illegal to mislead the public in the news. They can say anything they want if it is clearly identified as opinion, not so with news.

Hubble65
Sandy, UT

There is a simple way to deal with this on a Federal level. Simply pull all Federal programs out of those states not wanting Federal money or programs coming in. For Utah lets start with Hill AFB. The programs and jobs there can be moved out of the state to other locations. Now imagine if that were to happen what would happen to job market, housing market and local small business market up in Davis, Weber and Ogden counties. That would not just be a recession, but a depression locally. Lets see the citizens of Utah support those they elect by agreeing to refuse all Federal money in order to do their part to reduce the Federal budget. Won't happen because far too many people receive too much aid from the Feds.

Politicians need to back off this idea, it's a ploy that allows them to try to feed this anti-Federal feeling. Yes, I agree also that too many don't understand the Constitution enough to amend it, especially it seems many leaders of the Tea Party movement. Let It Be sang the Beatles and that should be the answer.

GWB
West Jordan, UT

The Rock, I like your ideas for Campaign finance reform!

However, that would be thrown away quickly by the Republicans who fought against campaign finance laws that banned corporations from giving money to elect candidates (the Citizens United decision).

It won't go far because Corporations believe that they have the same rights as a citizen to free speech.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

@Hubble65

Truth be known the TEA Party folks have read the constitution more than most.

The whole country would be better off if everyone read the constitution and they required the government to obey it.

Jay Leno said it best when Iraq was writing their constitution: "I hear Iraq is looking for a constitution. Let them have ours, we aren't using it."

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

@GWB

I agree! The Repubs would not like it. I don't care and I am a Republican.

True, corporations would not like it; however, I believe that people, well actually voters, should control this nation. Not corporations, not labor unions, not special interests.

In as much as we are talking constitutional amendments there would be no legal basis to challenge my proposed constitutional amendments because they are amendments.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

It is interesting to see the liberals here make the accusation that conservatives are hypocrites because they want to follow the state and federal constitution to make changes to those documents.

Nowhere have I heard conservatives or Tea Party members said that they wanted the the Federal Government to follow the constitution as writen in 1787. They only say that the government has stepped beyond its constitutional bounds.

If the Federal Government wants to supply health insurance for all citizens, then they need to ammend the Constitution.

grip
Meridian, ID

The constitution has had 20 plus amendments. The first ten (out of 12 proposed) took place during the first and only Constitutional Convention held in the late 1700s. All amendments since that time have been through congress proposing and passing the amendments and the states the approving or defeating the amendment. The latter is the best way. Pressure must be put on congress to propose the amendments. If a Con-Con were called it could be disaster. There is no guidance in the Constitution defining representation. limitation of subjects, etc. If the wrong groups were to get control of the convention, we could have many and varied amendments submitted. (How about totally legalized abortion, same sex marriage, our water sent to California or elsewhere, open borders, legalized drugs and on and on. Most legal scholars agree the convention cannot be limited to one subject and certainly there is no guidance for representation of the various states. Is this a risk we want to take? Not me!!!

newslover
Salt Lake City, UT

All this waste of time... for someone's 15 minutes of fame...

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments