Michigan Votes Forum

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)

Click here to view bill details.

Schools of choice are here to stay. This MUST include private or religious schools, which should claim EQUAL payments per child doing equally as well as those of a public school. Thus, if a home schooled or other private school student makes improvements in their education similar to the improvements that students of a given public school makes, then equal moneys per child should be allotted. Bad pubic schools will bust, and private enterprise schools will spring from the ashes, to the benefit of students and taxpayers and school districts alike. No CYA for teachers unions.

The trouble with today's system is that we have it backwards. Parents of school age children are granted huge tax breaks for having those kids, subsidized by the rest of us. So let's do it this way, instead: First, get rid of the tax breaks that subsidize the baby-makers. Then, levy a kid tax on parents of school age children, to cover the cost of their kids' education as determined by the legislature. Parents, who are the beneficiaries of the baby-sitting service, pay the full load. No kid equals no tax for schools. Then we can have school choice and transfer payment vouchers and all of that until the cows come home. It won't be any more of this business of mugging people who don't benefit to line the pockets of those who do.

the taxes when people stop having children?

in our constitution automatically constitutional? maybe it's because they violate the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, that's it... we have written into our constitution things that go directly contrary to the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. there are many things that go contrary to the u.s. constitution, and only a few are addressed here. let's just say that SIMPLER IS BETTER. we have far too many words in our constitution that DIRECTLY CONTRADICT THEMSELVES. we have far too many words in our constitution that take rights away for no good reason. the formula for this cluster fluck is as follows. legislators write a law, the law is challenged, the constitution gets changed to keep the new law 'constitutional', which puts our constitution afoul of the federal constitution. it also puts it afoul of personal liberties and their enjoyment. which puts it afould of itself. i say we elect more 'strict constructionists' as legislators, not the leftist 'make it fit our agenda' gang of thugs we have now.

michigan out of the education business altogether? that would solve all the problems. people who use the schools would pay for the schools. what a concept. if you think education is more important than food, you can donate all your money to the school of your choice. if you are rich, you can donate all your money to the school of your choice. it's all voluntary. let's see how that works for a few hundred years, shall we?

The great analyst tells us our Michigan Constitution gets fouled up this way: >the formula for this cluster fluck is as follows. >legislators write a law, the law is challenged, the constitution gets changed to keep the new law 'constitutional', which puts our constitution afoul of the federal constitution. it also puts it afoul of personal liberties and their enjoyment. which puts it afould of itself. >i say we elect more 'strict constructionists' as legislators, not the leftist 'make it fit our agenda' gang of thugs we have now.< What the great analyst conveniently left out is that the Constitution is amended by a referendum vote of the people of the State. That is to say, whatever winds up in the Constitution is there quite directly at the will of the people, and quite directly by the people’s hands. It is one of a few instances in which direct democracy is practiced in this state. In other words, you can’t hang this one on the legislature. Oh dear! Direct democracy can be so horribly inconvenient, leaving, as it does, nobody to blame but ourselves for the sorry result.

masses of prolitariat that elect the legislators? whom do you blame for what gets put on the referendum? i blame the leftists. you blame the right. in a way, we are both right. it doesn't matter what side the foul up came from, it matters what the result is. why is the state in so much hot water for UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS WRITTEN INTO IT'S VERY OWN CONSTITUTION? can it be that those who wrote the constitution couldn't read the OTHER CONSTITUTION? could it be that those who wrote the constitution DIDN'T CARE ABOUT WHAT WAS IN THE OTHER CONSTITUTION? maybe that's how we got UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS in our CONSTITUTION. either way, the legislature gets the blame. they wrote it, they put it up for the vote, and the people of michigan got suckered once again. it's happened before, and it will happen again. look what happened when we believed jennie when she said that we would 'ALL BE BLOWN AWAY'.

defend the legislators. they won't be around long after all the recalls are finished anyway. maybe you AGREE with the unconstitutional parts of our constitution. maybe you helped write some of them.

To be held accountable for your own foul-ups, doesn't it? You demand that the people's will be done, and when it is -- through amendments to the State Constitution -- you whine about the result. To note this is not defending the legislature, or legislators. It is placing the onus of lousy Constitutional amendments exactly where it belongs: Right in your lap, buddy. Mine, too. Lefty, righty, whatever. It doesn't matter what you call me. That won't change the truth, and the reality of the mess.

>i blame the leftists. you blame the right.< You can blame whoever you want. There have been equally offensive foul-ups from both the left and right. I easily and readily criticize both. And I’ll criticize middle-of-the-roaders when they foul things up, too. A foulup is a foulup no matter who creates it. >in a way, we are both right. it doesn't matter what side the foul up came from, it matters what the result is. why is the state in so much hot water for UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS WRITTEN INTO IT'S VERY OWN CONSTITUTION? >can it be that those who wrote the constitution couldn't read the OTHER CONSTITUTION?< You finally said something that made sense – that business about it not making any difference where the foulup came from. And you raise a pretty good question about whether or not the people who have written (and rewritten) Michigan’s State Constitution ever read and absorbed the principles laid out in the U.S. Constitution. The thing to remember is that when you vote on an amendment in a referendum, you are in reality writing and editing that part of the State Constitution. So you have some considerable responsibility. If it isn’t right, the only responsible thing to do is vote “no.” If you have voted to suit your own prejudices, or your own whatevers that run counter to the U.S. Constitution, then you have fouled up. Discharging this responsibility as a citizen-legislator demands a little determination to do what is right, rather than just do what feels good or seems convenient at the moment.

170 years of 'doing what feels good', isn't it time that the people of this state start DOING THE RIGHT THING? you admit that the people have voted for whatever the legislators have waved at them for as long as there has been a state legislature. you admit that the people here are part of the problem, not always part of the solution. you admit that the legislators, especially those on the left, have foisted on our state a plethora of unconstitutional laws, and even written some of that into the constitution. i've never personally been asked yet to amend the state constitution, i haven't been here that long, but i DO believe that there is room for improvement. you either believe that there is, or you support the things that are wrong. which is it? did you vote to have gun registration? did you vote to have illegal searches and seizures made legal? did you vote to have your rights thrown out the window? did you vote to have racism be the law of the land? SOMEBODY did, and i KNOW it wasn't me. YOU are the only person defending those who did it. is that how you want this state to do business? obviously so. you DO seem to support the 'status quo'. now, tell me how you can oppose removing the UNCONSTITUTIONAL parts of the michigan constitution. those who have the responsibility are those who were fool-hardy enough to put those unconstitutional parts of the law before the people to begin with. it was those people who were fool-hardy enough to put those fools in office to begin with. it's foolish to put unconstitutional proposals before the people. those who are SUPPOSED TO BE GUIDED by the principles in the constitution wouldn't do that. people who WOULD do that are guided by greed, power, and avarice. those who DID that are guided by self, not service. are these the people you defend? are these the people you hold in high esteem? i know you won't answer these questions, but then again, we already know the answer.

in the constitution. the united states constitution. the STATE constitution has been changed so much that it is almost totally unrecognizable. this state amends it's constitution whenever the wind blows. it amends it to follow the whims of fashion, not the will of the people. this state is ignorant enough, or arrogant enough to put patently unconstitutional laws into it's guiding document. it's also arrogant enough to IGNORE it's guiding document when it writes laws that strip rights from the people. why do you make it sound as if someone else other than you should be held responsible? don't you feel that the problem should be FIXED? isn't THAT a part of that same responsibility? i though that liberal meant 'free'. our constitution strips many freedoms from the citizens of this state. i thought that progressive meant 'moving forward'. do you really think that writing unconstitutional law is moving us forward? now, i know that you are going to label yourself a 'conservative'. i thought that conservatives CONSERVED OUR RIGHTS. how many of our rights have you supported being thrown by the wayside? who's rights have YOU stood up for? the citizen's, or the elite few? i'm sure that i can find hundreds, if not thousands of violations of the constitution in our laws. more if you count the DUPLICATIONS OF EFFORT WRITTEN INTO THE FEEL GOOD LEGISLATION PASSING FOR GOOD CITIZENSHIP THESE DAYS. a good legislator is not always known for the GOOD laws that he writes, but for the BAD legislation he does not allow to become law.

"Lefty, righty, whatever. It doesn't matter what you call me. That won't change the truth, and the reality of the mess." good point, lib boy. now, what do you suggest we do to FIX THE MESS?

Regardless if you're left or right, we should all be concerned when the will of the legislatures is to perpetuate their terms. Wording is everything. Not conspiracy-minded, just disenfranchised.

... are a form of disenfranchisement. They keep me from considering a full slate of otherwise qualified candidates to represent my interests in the legislature. By the way, the term limits referred to in this bill are imposed on candidates for the US Congress, not the Michigan Legislature. That is what evidently has been ruled unconstitutional. (It really is recommended that people actually study these bills -- and proposed amendments to the Michigan Constitution -- and correctly understand their content before taking a position on them. The fact that some housecleaning of the sort this resolution proposes for the Michigan Constitution is needed serves as an example of what happens when people don't do that.)

the franchise is written in the constitution. the one we have now is verbose beyond belief. it covers things which the government has NO BUSINESS concerning itself with. why is this? because there are those who want to be known for having done something, even if it's wrong. feel good legislation does nothing to solve the 'problem' it's aimed at. it's usually the result of somebody whining loud and long enough to spur our eager young space cadets to action.

people who write the thing. THEY sure weren't thinking when it was written, or at least they weren't thinking about not violating the constitution.

“now, what do you suggest we do to FIX THE MESS?” I would say that correctly understanding the content of, supporting and eventually voting for SJR I is a good start. From there, it comes down to being more conscientious about how you vote on referendum issues, especially those to referenda on proposals to amend the Michigan Constitution. Self governance demands personal and individual responsibility.

The ranter posts: >this state amends it's constitution whenever the wind blows. it amends it to follow the whims of fashion, not the will of the people. this state is ignorant enough, or arrogant enough to put patently unconstitutional laws into it's guiding document.< Well, that’s a pretty broad-brush indictment of the people of Michigan, who, after all, must approve each amendment to the State Constitution by popular vote. That is, by any definition, an expression of the will of the people. To deny that fact is to exist in La-La Land. One only can assume then, that unless the the ranter lives in La-La Land the ranter includes itself among the ignorant and arrogant who vote to amend the Michigan Constitution at the drop of a whim and without respect to and for fundamental American principles.

The voting public provides the check-and-balance element in the amendment process for the Michigan Constitution. The voting public is the final gatekeeper-arbiter. If a proposed amendment is poorly written, violates U.S. Constitutional principles, violates the fundamental American ethic, etc., it is up to the voting public to recognize that about it, and subsequently reject the amendment. This is direct democracy in action, and we have nobody to blame but ourselves for the outcome.

unconstitutional items been allowed to be written into our constitution? could it be from a CONCERTED EFFORT by our elected officials to PUT THEM THERE? the people can only 'check and balance' what is put before them by the legislators. so far they have done a PISS POOR JOB of checking OR balancing. their only concern is SELF IMPROVEMENT. if amendments are grouped together, like these are, and some 'target group' latches onto a particular part of the group, the rest will pass. either that, or the constitution, and the controls on government it provides, and the freedoms it stands for, mean nothing to the average michigander. once again, apathy rears it's ugly head. unless, of course, the people are part of the 'grand plan' to actually dump this state in the lake and watch it float away like sludge from a chrysler plant.

The need for civics lessons here at MichiganVotes continues apace. Here’s the latest, about amending the Michigan Constitution, from one of the ill-educated crowd: >the people can only 'check and balance' what is put before them by the legislators.< Wrong. There are two ways for a proposed amendment to be placed before the voters. The first is through a resolution passed by the legislature. The second is through a petition signed by qualified voters. Read the Michigan Constitution. It spells out these things, in black and white. In the end, the people of Michigan have the say-so, to vote yes or no on a proposed amendment. It’s all very simple, really. The responsibility is ours, as individuals, to make informed and principled choices, as we make our individual voting decisions. We are in charge. We are in control. Nobody else puts our X in the box, or pulls the lever for us, or touches the screen for us or punches the ballot for us, unless we authorize that help. People who childishly scapegoat the legislature here, on this issue, are people who simply refuse to take responsibility for their own participation (or lack of it) in a democratc process. It is time for them to grow up. Arguably, it is too easy to amend the Michigan Constitution. Perhaps the real solution here is to do something to make it a bit more challenging. One possibility is to require that any legislative amendment resolution must pass by a two-thirds vote in two consecutive sessions of the state legislature before it goes to the voters in a referendum. Or, perhaps we could require a super-majority of voters in a referendum to approve any amendment proposed by petition or legislative resolution. Or, perhaps we could require amendment propositions be approved by the voters in two consecutive general elections. You get the idea. Of course, it would require amending the Michigan Constitution to make any such changes. In the meantime, this cleanup resolution is a step in the right direction. Rather that hammering the legislature, the responsible posture is to endorse this effort, in the interest of promoting clarity in our state’s guiding document.

I'll bet Hillary is just tickled pink to be endorsed by such a loser.

that the entire population of michigan cares nothing for either constitution. you are saying that the entire population of michigan works in concert to deny themselves the rights of citizens. you are saying that the entire population of michigan has been putting unconstitutional articles into our own constitution for over 170 years without regard for the rights and liberties they are denying, and the lives they are ruining. with no help whatsoever from the legislators who sit in lansing. is that what you are saying? you need to go to the coffee isle of walmart and take a deep whiff. do YOU work to put unconstitutional provisions into our state document? i certainly don't. how many petitions for unconstitutional provisions have you seen passed? NONE. there have been none. do you honestly believe that thousands of citizens would band together to do just that? okay, here's a quiz. name one unconstitutional provision of the michigan constitution that was the direct result of a petition of the people. there were hundreds of changes in the last constitutional convention. i'll bet you can't name one that was because of a petition. that means that ALL THE REST WERE SUBMITTED BY THE LEGISLATURE. that's why i blame them. you unrealistically hold out hope that we have done this to ourselves. did YOU sign any unconstitutional petitions?

"Any law proposed by initiative petition shall be either enacted or rejected by the legislature without change or amendment within 40 session days from the time such petition is received by the legislature." that means, my civically challenged friend, that the legislature passes or doesn't pass every law that the people send to them. it's not just automatic that a petition becomes law. that gives the legislature one last 'check and balance' against unconstitutional laws being passed by the masses. that means, my misguided correspondant, that the legislature hasn't been doing it's elected job of safeguarding our constitution. neither has the governor, because she (or he) has the job of accepting or rejecting every law that passes their desk. yes, people may propose laws by initiative, and repeal laws by referrendum, but the legislature must accept or reject every one of them. THAT'S why i blame the legislature.

The responsibility-shirking ranter-scapegoater that opposes this resolution now has tried to employ one of its old tactics: change the subject and try to confuse the issue (and debate). Either that, or it is too intellectually challenged to understand the difference between laws enacted in accordance with the State Constitution, and changes -- amendments -- to the State Constitution itself. Further, why is the responsibility-shirker-ranter-scapegoater opposing a proposal to remove obsolete, nullified, voided provisions from our State Constitution? To oppose such desirable housekeeping is totally irrational and irresponsible. To make sure the record is straight: Proposals to amend the Constitution can be generated either by a joint House-Senate resolution passed by the legislature, or an initiative petition signed by registered voters. However, the State Constitution can be amended only by popular vote. The people have the final and sole authority to approve (adopt) or reject amendments. The following facts come from the Michigan Bureau of Elections. * Since the current Michigan Constitution was adopted by popular vote in 1963, there have been 67 proposed amendments that have gone before the voters for approval. * The people have voted to amend the Constitution 30 times, including three amendments approved in the November 2006 general election. Thirty-seven proposed amendments have been rejected. * Of the 67 proposed amendments to the 1963 Constitution, 42 were placed on the ballot by legislative resolution. Twenty-one of these were approved and 21 rejected. Twenty-five propositions to amend the Constitution were put before the people by initiative petition: 16 of these were rejected and nine adopted. The remaining two proposals – to call a Constitutional Convention – appeared on the ballot automatically in accordance with Constitutional requirements, and both were rejected by the voting public. It is clear from this factual history that Michigan voters are, indeed in the driver’s seat when it comes to amending their Constitution. They have the full authority over and full responsibility for what their State Constitution says. Certain provisions in the Michigan Constitution have fallen into conflict with the United States Constitution. The Michigan Constitutional voting age of 21 is unenforceable because it conflicts with Amendment XXVI of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1971, which established the 18-years voting age nationwide. (Interestingly, Michigan voters twice rejected proposed amendments to their State Constitution that would have lowered the state voting age to 18. Those proposed amendments were defeated by substantial popular vote margins in 1966 and 1970. Both were placed on the ballot by legislative resolution.) The Michigan Constitutional provision that allows only property owners to vote on certain tax issues clearly violates Amendment XXIV of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1964. Other provisions of the Michigan Constitution have been nullified by court decisions. What Senator McManus has proposed is that the Michigan Constitution now be amended to remove obsolete, voided provisions that it contains. This is a sensible and responsible proposal that the public should embrace and endorse wholeheartedly. There is no good argument against it.

hasn't read the constitution recently, it says that inititives can be initiated by the people, but they must be approved by the legislature. if you haven't read that, you haven't read the constitution. nice try, though.

what is wrong with our constitution in this state. "Searches and seizures. Sec. 10. The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation: [this is all that is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of michigan citizens. now, watch what the legislature put in next, which has been found to be unconstitutional.] Provided, however, That the provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any court of criminal jurisdiction, or in any criminal proceeding held before any magistrate or justice of the peace, any narcotic drug or drugs, any firearm, rifle, pistol, revolver, automatic pistol, machine gun, bomb, bomb shell, explosive, blackjack, slingshot, billy, metallic knuckles, gas-ejecting device, or any other dangerous weapon or thing, seized by any peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state." [now, why would these things all be listed in the constitution? certainly the people didn't put those items in the wording of the constitution. by the way, the 'curtilage' is an area around the outside of your house. that means the INSIDE of your house is OUTSIDE of the curtilage. that gives the michigan police the power to bust down your door, search your house, and no warrant would be necessary, nor would any constitutional remedy such as the exclusionary rule be available, as the STATE constitution authorizes such a search. i'm sure that the people didn't voluntarily insist that their rights be thrown away like this. if all the things on this list are illegal, they need to have laws expressing that, the search and seizure clause of the constitution is not the place for that. the state constitution is a document meant to LIMIT state power, not expand it. only by limiting the scope of authority that the state holds over it's citizens can we truly be considered FREE.

Why do you cite the obsolete 1908 Michigan Constitution (which has been invalid for 43 years) when we are discussing a legislative resolution for cleanup amendments to the (current) 1963 State Constitution? Are you really that dumb, or are you just trying to sow confusion here, hoping to defeat this much needed cleanup effort?

the CURRENT constitution. the last part of it has been already found to be unconstitutional. why wasn't it removed immediately?

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT) CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963 § 11 Searches and seizures. Sec. 11. The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state. this is not an excerpt from the earlier constitution, this, because you haven't read it, is an excerpt from the CURRENT constitution. how can you continue to allow your ineptitude to show?

have you even READ the current constitution? obviously not. you have no clue what you are talking about, yet you continually try to oppose REAL change to get REAL improvement. you are CONTINUALLY shown to be wrong, yet you CONTINUALLY keep making wrong headed, left leaning statements. it must HURT to be so liberal and so stupid.

Now that you've managed to cite the current Michigan Constitution accurately (miracles do happen, evidently), why do you continue to oppose this resolution to remove elements of it that are nullified by the U.S. Constitution? You appear to be one of those members of the voting public who don't understand or care that the final authority you -- as a voter -- have over what the State Constution says bears with it a responsibility to get it right. This resolution should breeze through the legislature and the proposed amendments should be appropved overwhelmingly by the voting public.

stupid. miracles do happen, you survived this long without killing yourself. i asked why, in 1963, didn't the legislature fix this problem? it HAS existed for around 170 years or so. don't you realize that your own constitution is robbing you of your right to defend yourself? a right it expressly guarantees? don't you realize that your own constitution is robbing you of your right to be left alone by government? a right it expressly guarantees in one clause, then forcefully takes away in the next. i'd like to see the legislature GET IT RIGHT this time, and i'd like to see you prove your contention that the PEOPLE did this, not the legislators. i saw no petitions concerning this. i saw no inititatives. i saw no referendum. i saw no legislative action. only INDIFFERENCE. you don't have to read very far into the constitution to find these two shining examples of legislative ineptitude, maybe you should read further, to see if you can find some more. i certainly have, and i await what the elected in lansing are going to do with them. i suggest that the state get out of any business which they have no business getting involved in. the business of the state is not butting into everyone else's business. the business of the state is not to regulate the population, it is to SERVE THEM. it is to preserve their liberties at all costs, and it is to FAIRLY TAX and EFFICIENTLY SPEND to provide the limited number of state services our constitution outlines. it's job is NOT to incarcerate every citizen, then bind them with endless fees and fielty. it's job is NOT to change citizen's behavior. it's job is NOT to 'protect the children'. all of these things are the jobs of CITIZENS, and are best left TO THE CITIZENS. the state's job is NOT to provide charity to the poor, that is the job of the CHURCH. in the true spirit of 'the separation of church and state', the STATE should STOP DOING THE CHURCH'S WORK. I TRUST the people to raise their children. I TRUST the people to obey the law. I TRUST the people to take care of the poor. I TRUST the people to educate their children. why doesn't the state?

i DID properly quote the michigan constitution. YOU misread. YOU didn't look up the verbage to SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIM. YOU just shot your big mouth off. YOU screwed up. YOU lost all credibility. YOU lost. now, what are YOU going to do about this mess we call a constitution? are we going to force our legislators to FIX IT? or are we going to sit on our hands and DO NOTHING? by the way, if you haven't signed the petitions yet, they will be heading your way soon. if not look them up with a GOOGLE search. if you ACCEPT the status quo, you AGREE WITH the status quo.

that the legislature has had 170 years to correct this problem, and hasn't. i'm even more amazed that the people of michigan let them get away with it. the other poster is right, you don't have to read very far into the michigan constitution to find a whole bunch of unconstitutionality. it seems that the rights of the people, which are to be brought forward to our children are indeed diminished.

breeze through the LAST constitutional convention we had? why did it have to wait till now? it's been staring us in the face now for over a century, almost two. let's FIX THE PROBLEMS.

For the State Constitution. The Michigan Constitution is the voting public's authority, responsibility and product. Each provision that SJR I proposes to correct was in accord with the U.S. Constution when the Michigan Constitution was rewritten and approved by the state's voters in 1963. Two of the proposed corrections have been necessitated by amendments to the United States Constitution. The remainder are necessitated by court decisions. SJR I is an important and worthwhile bit of legislation that should be applauded rather than opposed.

Do you continue to criticize and oppose SJR I, which proposes to align the Michigan Constitution with the United States Constitution?