Michigan Votes Forum

i'm saying that you are not smart enough to read the constitution for yourself and figure it out.

that 'defined' marriage so vaguely to assure that ALL weddings could be taxed are biting this state in the ass on this issue. how can the state mandate 'same sex marriages' that clearly violate many religious precepts? wouldn't that mean the state is telling religion what to do? doesn't sound like the state is separating itself from religion to me. why don't the 'separation of church and state' democrats have a problem with this? why don't the 'rights and liberties above laws' republicans allow it to happen? why is the state even bothering with this issue? those who would practice 'same sex marriage' are a very small slice of the citizenry. a 'special interest group' to be sure. laws are written for the public good. that's the ENTIRE public. what good does it do to have laws that effect only a special interest group written into the law? NONE. is it the state's job to pander to special interest groups? NO. this state is like a mail man selling ice cream. no mail gets delivered because he's not doing the proper job of a mail man. he's working, yes, and occasionally working hard, but not at what he is supposed to do.

is not the 'product of the state'. the state has no 'right' to even define what a religion considers marriage in the first place. the only 'interest' that the state has in whether or not a 'couple' is married or not is how much taxes they pay. this 'marriage interest' was first introduced to 'entice and encourage' couples to marry, thus promoting the following of 'religious practices'. as the state then got into the 'business' of performing marriages that churches didn't condone, it, by default 'set itself up as an alternative church'. an 'alternative' that provides the same services as a church is still a church. i'm sure that they thought they were 'doing the right thing'. but were they? are they 'doing the right thing' now? they even instituted a nifty little provision of the law that SOME religions STILL don't agree with. DIVORCE. yet they insist that ALL religions recognize divorce. so much for the vaunted 'separation of church and state'. i thought that if the church and the state were supposed to be separate, that one didn't have anything to do with the other.

the question was asked "if something has not yet been adjudicated, then it must be "constitutional?" the only way that anything is 'declared unconstitutional' is to have it brought before the supreme court. citizens must 'know' that something is unconstitutional in order to spend the time, money and effort to bring it to the court's attention. this usually requires a strong sense of 'right and wrong', and the ability to understand what is read. in any trial in the land, the motto 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' us upheld with the highest regard.

That Michigan's Constitutional prohibition against same sex marriages and civil unions violates the US Constitutional prohibition against Congressional establishment of a religion or meddling in the practice of religion. So you are advocating that Michigan's ban on same-sex marriages and civil unions be removed from the state Constitution.

You assert: “the only way that anything is 'declared unconstitutional' is to have it brought before the supreme court.” So, you are saying that Article II, Section I of the Michigan Constitution does not actually violate the US Constitution by setting the legal voting age at 21 years, even though the US Constitution was amended in 1971 to set the voting age throughout the United States at 18. You certainly have some quaint ideas about how things work.

You say: “the only way that anything is 'declared unconstitutional' is to have it brought before the supreme court.” According to your assertion, then, the search and seizure provision in Article I, Section 11 of the State Constitution actually does not violate the US Constitution after all, since that specific provision has not been specifically adjudicated by the US Supreme Court. That is to say, all the ranting here about Art I, Sec 11 being unconstitutional has been nothing but natural fertilizer. Right?

if you have read the constitution, as you say, then you would have read the case citation under the article in question. that means that some poor soul has ALREADY brought this to the attention of the supreme court AND WON. and you said you read the constitution... it must be wonderful to be misinformed... you do it so well, and so often. nice try though... try again.

when you DIDN'T read the constitution. "Constitutionality: The last sentence of this section was held invalid as in conflict with US Const, Am IV. Lucas v People, 420 F2d 259 (CA 6, 1970); Caver v Kropp, 306 F Supp 1329 (DC Mich 1969); People v Pennington, 383 Mich 611; 178 NW2d 460 (1970); People v Andrews, 21 Mich App 731; 176 NW2d 460 (1970)." now, if you can't make any sense of these, join the millions of other 'true blue michiganders' out there. if you can, turn out the lights when you leave.

despite reading the constitution of the united states, the legislature thought it was a good idea to ignore it. that is IF they read it in the first place, which i doubt. what i am saying is that the state of michigan is NOT WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO DEPRIVE 18 YEAR OLDS THE RIGHT TO VOTE. if you don't understand that, you are not alone. the legislature doesn't seem to understand that either. there is a difference between BEING UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and being DECLARED unconstitutional. you seem to require that something be DECLARED unconstitutional before you believe that it IS unconstitutional. you can't DECIDE FOR YOURSELF whether or not something is unconstitutional on your own without the nanny state telling you it is.

proscription is that? please quote the article of the constitution you are talking about. the federal proscription i spoke of is in the united states code, not the united states constitution. which federal proscription are YOU talking about? please clarify.

is whether or not the state has the RIGHT to define marriage. you still haven't addressed that issue. from the perspective of 'separation of church and state', it would seem to be perfectly abhorrent. from the perspective of 'legislate to perfection' it would seem to be the thing to do. which position do you support? remember, defining marriage tells churches what to believe, instead of the other way around. is it even the job of the state to define marriage? is it the job of the state to 'control religion'? do you support the mail man selling ice cream?

all these people trying to ask questions of constitutionality who haven't even read the constitution. don't they teach you about the constitution in school? obviously not. or are you just one of those that didn't pay any attention in civics class? remember, our constitution get's changed three ways, legislative action, citizen initative, and supreme court decision. this bill deals with the consequences of ignoring the third method of change. these articles have been ignored for a hundred years. it's about time that they got removed from our constitution. each and every one of them. but no one in this state seems to have the intelligence to actually read the constitution and find those unconstitutional articles for themselves. it's taken the good work of a conscientious legislator to bring it to a vote, and an 'outsider' to bring it to our attention. all this started because an 'outsider', named CRAZYCAJUN brought this idea to our attention. he seems to be more of a citizen of this state than the rest of us. we let this situation simmer for a century. we ignored it, because it probably wouldn't effect us. we let it fester, and all the while, we complain about the symptoms, over crowded jails, high crime, even higher murder rates, and lawlessness in general. there are elected representatives in our state who voted to keep these unconstitutional provisions in our constitution. people we trusted enough to vote for. taking people's rights away is evil. either they are evil and we are stupid for voting for them, or we are all evil. which is it?

A poster opines: >no one in this state seems to have the intelligence to actually read the constitution and find those unconstitutional articles for themselves. it's taken the good work of a conscientious legislator to bring it to a vote, and an 'outsider' to bring it to our attention.< Not exactly. There has been considerable discussion for several years now among conscientious Michiganders about “correcting” the state Constitution. Most recently, the Michigan Cmaber of Commerce adopted the following resolution: ---------------------------------------- APPROVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEPTEMBER 18, 2007 The Michigan Chamber of Commerce has previously expressed its opposition to calling a new Constitutional Convention for Michigan in 2010, when that question is next placed automatically before state voters. However, the Michigan Chamber supports periodic revision of the Michigan Constitution on an amendment-by-amendment basis. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce recognizes that the current Michigan Constitution adopted in 1963 contains certain deficiencies that should be addressed by policy-makers and voters. Several provisions in the Michigan Constitution are inoperative and obsolete because they violate the U.S. Constitution. One of the primary reasons for having a written Constitution is to inform citizens of the fundamental law by which they are governed. Therefore, the text of the Michigan Constitution should reflect the actual status of state law. The Michigan Chamber supports placing an amendment on the ballot in 2008 to delete the invalid provisions that are in conflict with United States Supreme Court and Michigan Supreme Court interpretations of the United States Constitution. Passage of such an amendment would remove one of the arguments proponents cite as a reason to call a new constitutional convention. Background The following provisions have been invalid for many years. Their deletion from the Michigan Constitution need not be accompanied by replacement provisions: Exclusionary Rule In People v Pennington, 383 Mich 611 (1970), the Michigan Supreme Court held that the last sentence of Section 11 of Article 1, which allowed certain evidence to be admitted into criminal proceedings, violated the exclusionary rule adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961). In general terms, the exclusionary rule provides that evidence obtained by law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution must be excluded from criminal proceedings. Voting Age The requirement contained in Section 1 of Article 2 that voters be at least 21 years of age was rendered invalid by the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reduced the voting age to 18. Property Ownership Requirement Section 6 of Article 2 restricted to property owners the right to vote on certain ad valorem tax limitation increases and bond issues. This provision has not been enforceable since the United State Supreme Court held that such restrictions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. City of Phoenix v Kolodziejski, 399 US 204 (1970). The reference to this property ownership requirement found in Section 6 of Article 9 of the State Constitution is also inoperative for the same reason. County Board of Supervisors Section 7 of Article 7 required that a board of supervisors be established in each county of the state. The board of supervisors was to consist of one member from each organized township and representation from cities as provided by law. In 1966, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the method of apportioning county boards of supervisors violated the equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Advisory Opinion re: Constitutionality of Public Act 261 of 1966, 380 Mich 736 (1966). The Michigan Supreme Court followed the reasoning of a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the redistricting of local governmental legislative bodies. The Michigan legislature later enacted county commission redistricting standards legislation (MCL 46.401). Prohibition of Public Aid to Nonpublic Schools In 1970, Section 2 of Article 8 was amended to prohibit public financial support for non-public schools. The amendment added three sentences to Section 2. In Traverse City School District v Attorney General, 384 Mich 390 (1971), The Michigan Supreme Court held that a portion of the second sentence violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution (free exercise of religion and equal protection of the laws, respectively). The sentence in question, and that portion of it held invalid, provided that “[n]o payment, credit, tax benefit, exemption or deduction, tuition voucher, subsidy, grant or loan of public monies or property shall be provided directly or indirectly, to support the attendance of any student or the employment of any person at any such nonpublic school or at any location or institution where instruction is offered in whole or in part to such nonpublic school student.” Legislative Apportionment Parts of five sections in Article 4 that relate to legislative apportionment are invalid. Legislative apportionment is the method by which the state is divided into geographic districts from which voters elect state Senators and state Representatives. The state Constitution is deficient as regards to legislative apportionment in two respects: it neither specifies what official is responsible for legislative apportionment, nor what standards are to govern the process. Less than one year after the state Constitution was adopted, a majority of the apportionment provisions (Sections 2 through 6 of Article 4) were rendered unconstitutional by virtue of the United States Supreme Court decision of Reynolds v Sims, 377 US 533 (1964). The essence of Reynolds is that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that both houses of a state legislature be apportioned on the basis of one person, one vote. The Michigan Supreme Court invalidated the Commission on Legislative Apportionment in 1982. The Michigan Supreme adopted redistricting standards for the drawing of house and senate districts and appointed Bernard Apol, retired director of the Bureau of Elections as a special master to draw a plan following those standards for the 1982 election. In 1996, the Michigan legislature enacted a State Legislative Redistricting Standards Act, which codified the standards used by the Michigan Supreme Court in adopting a state legislative redistricting plan in 1982 and 1992 (MCL 4.261). Term Limits on Federal Officials Elected from Michigan Article II, Section 10 of the Michigan Constitution was added by the adoption of Proposal B in November 1992. Members of the U.S. House of Representatives from Michigan were restricted to serving no more than three two-year terms (6 years) in a twelve year time period. U.S. Senators elected from Michigan were restricted to serving no more than two six-year terms (12 years) in a 24 year time period. State term limits on federal legislators were challenged in Arkansas. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1995 held that states could not impose term limits on federal officials, only an amendment to the U.S. Constitution could impose such limitations. U.S. Term Limits v Thorton 514 U.S. 779 (1995). ------------------------------------------------ On October 10, 2007, Senators Michelle McManus, Cameron Brown and John Pappageorge introduced Senate Joint Resolution I, which proposed to implement the Chamber’s recommendation. That was just three weeks after the Chamber adopted its own resolution, above. The Chamber’s resolution provides an excellent recap of when and how certain provisions of the Michigan Constitution fell into conflict or were determined to stand in conflict with the United States Constitution. You will find this much more enlightening than any of the extensive rants about the history of Michigan’s Constitution that have been posted here about these items. It is a point of dismay that the Michigan Senate, led by its Republican majority, stripped three proposed corrections out SJR I before sending it to the Michigan House on Nov. 7, 2007. Still, SJR I even in its current form proposes corrections that should be made.

that the committee on elections REMOVED a couple of those provisions for reasons of their own. it seems that the various departments of government can't decide on what exactly good government is. the attorney general's office actively lobbied to leave the unconstitutional article concerning search and seizure as is. the committee was happy to oblige. now you want to talk to me about who reads the constitution and who doesn't?

conscientious legislator was inspired by the chamber of commerce report, and her work is commended and appreciated. it's a shame that the committee that she chairs voted to remove those provisions.

if you would have read the state constitution, and the federal constitution,you would have seen this note just under article two,section one of the michigan constitution. "Compiler's Notes: U.S. Const., Amendment XXVI, § 1, provides: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” now, if you need the supreme court to rule on that, you do not have the intelligence you give yourself credit for. article 2, section 1 has been in place and actively enforced since at least 1963. it has been known to be unconstitutional for at least that long. why hasn't it been changed? each and every person between the ages of 18 and 21 have had their voting franchise removed by a stroke of the state legislative pen, in 'conflict' with the united states constitution. you seem to support that kind of legislation, as you are happy to let it stand on the books. several state departments are actively lobbying to keep them on the books. why? is it the business of the state of michigan to deprive it's citizens of their rights? it certainly seems to be.

constitutional provision requiring the separation of church and state, this article of the michigan constitution would certainly violate it. "Article 1,Sec. 25. To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." how dare the state of michigan propose to tell every religion on the planet how to define marriage? what gives the state of michigan the right to force, at gunpoint if necessary, every religion represented by the citizenry to change it's precepts?

Our resident Constitutional expert now posts: “article 2, section 1 has been in place and actively enforced since at least 1963. it has been known to be unconstitutional for at least that long. why hasn't it been changed???each and every person between the ages of 18 and 21 have had their voting franchise removed by a stroke of the state legislative pen, in 'conflict' with the united states constitution.” The reference is to Article II, Section I of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, approved by vote of the Michigan people, setting the voting age at 21 years. In 1971 (eight years after the 1963 Michigan Constitution became effective) Amendment XXVI to the United States Constitution was ratified by the states, requiring that the legal voting age for all citizens was to be 18 years. Thus, the 21 year age requirement for Michigan voters was nullified in 1971, and has not been enforceable or enforced since then. The above statement by our resident Constitutional “expert” is false in respect to every factual assertion it makes. Incidentally, Michigan's was the 15th state legislature to vote for ratifying Amendment XXVI, acting on April 7, 1971. That was just two weeks after the proposed amendment was sent to the states. Final ratification was achieved with a vote by the Oklahoma legislature on July 1, 1971. Eight states have never ratified Amendment XXVI.

The ban on same-sex marriage and civil unions must be removed from the Michigan Constitution. Tell that to the 59% majority of Michiganders who voted to add it to the State Constitution in 2004.

put it on the ballot that they were not following the letter OR the spirit of separation of church and state. it's not the state's job to tell me what to believe, whether or not to believe, and what my church must condone. it's not the other citizen's job either. that's called 'GOVERNMENT BY MOB RULE'.

old vote in michigan today?

have to allow 18 year olds to vote? they never ratified it, but it got 'shoved down their throats' by the rest of the states ratifying it. is setting voting age a 'state's right' or a 'federal right'? or is it a 'right held to the people'? does the 'right' to determine when and if a person becomes a 'citizen' belong to the federal government, the state government, or the people? can the 'will of the people' be overturned? SHOULD the will of the people be overturned?

if they read the constitution, and if the constitution actually contains a proscription against the rule of state over church, then they were in error. on the other hand, if the state is mandating what marriage is and isn't, and marriage is the pervue of the church and not the state, then the state has, in effect, set itself up as the 'CHURCH OF THE HOLY SECULAR'. are the people of this state so holy and upright that they feel that they can dictate what my religion must and must not do? what happened to FREEDOM OF RELIGION? according to michigan law, my church is not allowed to determine what it's practicioners must or must not do in order to be married. that means that being a devout catholic is against the law. devout catholics (especially eastern orthodox catholics) do not condone divorce, they only TOLERATE IT.

has another name... it's a DEMOCRACY... i'm glad we live in a constitutional republic, aren't you?

was amended in 1971, thirty plus years ago, why is the michigan constitution STILL in 'conflict' with it? why are michiganders still having their rights taken away? what is taking out state legislature so long to fix these problems? because there are people here who WANT to take our rights away. people who actively lobby our legislature to assure that such laws stay on the books.

'constitutional skeptic' has all the facts in front of him as to when the michigan constitution was placed into conflict with the united states constitution, but no clue as to how to fix it. he even seems complacent with the fact that several unconstitutional provisions that this bill was supposed to take care of were removed by elected and appointed officials of this state. he has no problem with this, as this is obviously how things have been run for the last century or so.

is the stupid assertions you make without benefit of evidence about somebody else's level of concern over aspects of the Michigan Constitution that conflict with the US Constitution. Aren't you the clown who has stated outright that you oppose SJR I -- would not vote for it -- if it comes to the ballot in its present form? Refusal to support a corrective measure makes you an obstructionist by definition.

that you are an obstructionist. "Refusal to support a corrective measure makes you an obstructionist by definition." so, you refuse to support the complete corrective measure, so i guess you are an obstructionist. by the way, whatever made you think that we would get a vote on this measure. it's either going to pass the legislature or not, then it goes to the governor. if she signs it, it becomes law. we never get the chance to vote on it. so it would appear that the TRUE obstructionist here is the attorney general. his office DID lobby the committee extensively for the removal of the unconstitutional provisions that have been stripped from this bill. you like to blame the wrong person for your problems. i am not the one to blame. but people like you, who accept less and less from your elected representatives are.

without evidence. i assert this after receiving information from two sources, independantly verified. now, if you'd like to ask nicely, i'll tell you who the two sources are. if not... you'll have to find out for yourself, like i did. what i wonder is why the attorney general would lobby a committee to remove a correction on an obviously unconstitutional provision from this bill? what purpose could keeping the unconstitutional provisions in the constitution serve?

Is the absolutely false assertions you make, time after time. Here’s your latest example: “by the way, whatever made you think that we would get a vote on this measure. “it's either going to pass the legislature or not, then it goes to the governor. if she signs it, it becomes law. “we never get the chance to vote on it.” That certainly is news to anyone who actually has read the Michigan Constitution. Or the actual text of SJR I. Or the descriptions of it written by the Mackinac Center. The State Constitution says: “Amendments to this constitution may be proposed in the senate or house of representatives. Proposed amendments agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in each house on a vote with the names and vote of those voting entered in the respective journals shall be submitted, not less than 60 days thereafter, to the electors at the next general election or special election as the legislature shall direct. If a majority of electors voting on a proposed amendment approve the same, it shall become part of the constitution and shall abrogate or amend existing provisions of the constitution at the end of 45 days after the date of the election at which it was approved.” (Michigan Constitution, 1963; Article VII, Section 1) The actual language of SJR I says, in part: “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the state of Michigan, That the following amendment to the state constitution of 1963, to repeal constitutional provisions that have been declared unconstitutional, is proposed, agreed to, and submitted to the people of the state:” The Mackinac Center description of SJR I begins: “Passed in the Senate (27 to 0) on November 7, 2007, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to repeal various provisions of the state Constitution that have been ruled unconstitutional by state or federal courts. …” Point is, if SJR I garners sufficient votes in both the Senate and House, it goes directly to the people for a vote. Period. Three strikes. You’re out. You say: “you like to blame the wrong person for your problems. i am not the one to blame. but people like you, who accept less and less from your elected representatives are.” We don’t “blame” you for anything, but do point out that you seem remarkably confused and unable to get your facts straight, even on widely and well understood aspects of how our government works.

Is the absolutely false assertions you make, time after time. Here’s your latest example: “by the way, whatever made you think that we would get a vote on this measure. “it's either going to pass the legislature or not, then it goes to the governor. if she signs it, it becomes law. “we never get the chance to vote on it.” That certainly is news to anyone who actually has read the Michigan Constitution. Or the actual text of SJR I. Or the descriptions of it written by the Mackinac Center. The State Constitution says: “Amendments to this constitution may be proposed in the senate or house of representatives. Proposed amendments agreed to by two-thirds of the members elected to and serving in each house on a vote with the names and vote of those voting entered in the respective journals shall be submitted, not less than 60 days thereafter, to the electors at the next general election or special election as the legislature shall direct. If a majority of electors voting on a proposed amendment approve the same, it shall become part of the constitution and shall abrogate or amend existing provisions of the constitution at the end of 45 days after the date of the election at which it was approved.” (Michigan Constitution, 1963; Article VII, Section 1) The actual language of SJR I says, in part: “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the state of Michigan, That the following amendment to the state constitution of 1963, to repeal constitutional provisions that have been declared unconstitutional, is proposed, agreed to, and submitted to the people of the state:” The Mackinac Center description of SJR I begins: “Passed in the Senate (27 to 0) on November 7, 2007, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to repeal various provisions of the state Constitution that have been ruled unconstitutional by state or federal courts. …” Point is, if SJR I garners sufficient votes in both the Senate and House, it goes directly to the people for a vote. Period. [again, i ask, what makes you think that you will ever get a chance to vote on this issue? the committee, chaired by the author of the bill can't even agree what the bill should and should not cover. the house is just sitting on it. as they don't want to be seen as 'pro illegal search and seizure'. so, unless they put the language back in, which they are not likely to do, they will not pass this. also the attorney general's office is actively lobbying against certain provisions of this bill. i'd say it was a case of the TWENTY SIXTH STRIKE against you.] Three strikes. You’re out. You say: “you like to blame the wrong person for your problems. i am not the one to blame. but people like you, who accept less and less from your elected representatives are.” We don’t “blame” you for anything, but do point out that you seem remarkably confused and unable to get your facts straight, even on widely and well understood aspects of how our government works. [obviously YOU can't figure out how a government is supposed to work. you have had unconstitutional provisions in the constitution for a century, with no hope of removal of any now. how's that working for you?]

the skeptic is telling us that we have no clue how government works. the same guy who believes that our 'search and seizure clause' has never been to the supreme court. the same guy who can't figure out for himself whether or not a provision of the michigan constitution is unconstitutional on it's face without a 'test in the courts'. the same guy who CLAIMS to have read the constitution, but just 'skipped over' the unconstitutional parts. the same guy who CLAIMS that unconstitutional provisions are null and void, but also believes in the importance of removing them from the constitution after a hundred years. sounds like our skeptic is being contrary for the sake of being contrary. sort of like >carrot-top<, the 'troll patrol', and OLD BOOTS FULL OF PISS. he's not sure where he stands, or for what. he just knows that he's contrary. this bill is going to the governor or not depending on how thoroughly our legislature strips out the provisions of this bill. they seem to be doing a bang-up job of stripping it even as we speak. as our governor has had TWO TERMS to do anything about this, and hasn't, i don't hold out any hope of her growing a spine any time soon. as our citizenry has had A HUNDRED YEARS to do anything about this, and hasn't, i don't hold out any hope of THEM growing a spine any time soon either.

performed by the state make the state a church? should the state be in the 'business' of marrying people? where in the constitution does it say we must marry people? where in the constitution does it even say we CAN marry people? the state has been doing 'civil unions' for years and calling them marriages. the only reason for not doing gay civil unions or marriages is that the devout population wouldn't vote the politician who did it back into office. fear has successfully deterred gay marriage for thousands of years.

i have contacted several representatives on the committees involved with this legislation, and am requesting a copy of the minutes so that the names of the lobbyists against the removal of the search and seizure provision can be made public. anyone who lobbies against removal of an unconstitutional provision must have an agenda in mind. we wonder what the attorney general would want to have illegal searches and seizures for? we also wonder who else actively lobbied against the removal of unconstitutional provisions?

think that the article pertaining to search and seizure is constitutional? it has already been found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL and yet, the legislators, along with other elected officials in this state work long and hard to keep the unconstitutional provision in the constitution. this makes no sense. it also makes no sense to leave other unconstitutional provisions in the states document, while taking others out. it seems our resident 'flip flopper' has no problem accepting whatever the whim of the legislators is, without remorse, without regret, cheerfully taking the screwing our rights have taken for over a hundred years. i have no doubt that, with laws like these on the books, innocent men rot in prison.

of michigan voters how haven't and won't read the united states constitution? nor have they, or will they read the michigan constitution. they only vote on 'me' issues. they want the benefits of 'same sex marriages'. they want to pray at the altar of secularism. they want to move away from the acusatory eyes of organized religion to the comfortable zone of 'secular humanism' offered by the state. welcome to the CHURCH OF MICHIGAN.

go nowhere once it hit the house side. it's been there since november, and they can't even find a committee that will touch it in it's present form. so much for ANY hope that the constitution of michiganistan will be straightened out anytime soon. but then again, that's what the happy democrats of the peoples republik of michiganistan must want.

n3m42bvbv6vfnjg7

The Mackinac Center synopsis of this resolution says:

 

admin:

Introduced in the Senate on October 10, 2007, to place before voters in the next general election a Constitutional amendment to repeal various provisions of the state Constitution that have been ruled unconstitutional by state or federal courts. These include: A requirement that an elector have property in a district that is affected by an election in order to be qualified to vote; the formula for reapportioning State senatorial and representative districts; provisions that establish a Commission on Legislative Apportionment; and term limit requirements for members of Congress.

The vote was 27 in favor, 0 opposed and 11 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 477 at Senate Journal 117)

 

This sensible housecleaning resolution could have placed the amendment question on this year’s November election ballot, but it bogged down in the legislature over who-knows-what sort of obstructionist politics. 

 

An identical Joint Resolution should be introduced and passed in timely fashion during the next legislative session, which opens in January 2009.