-------------
(This is a long article. The living members of Montana's 1972 constitutional convention are eminently quotable, but why are the only two that are quoted leftists?)
Montana has a state constitution unlike any other. It is newer than those of many states, just now ending its 40th year, so it reflects slightly newer ideas, such as guaranteeing the right to privacy, the right to know and the right to a clean environment. (These are newer ideas? This is the perspective of leftists, that "progressive" ideas are synonymous with "progress." Note the hint of the "superiority" of these newer ideas. Newer does not mean better.)
Even in 1972, those ideas were different enough that some didn’t accept them easily. Every hurdle on the way toward ratification was cleared only by the slimmest of vote margins, and some groups are still fighting those ideas four decades later. (Those who are against progress just won't give up. They are stuck in a different era, resisting change, hating new ideas...) Yet the Montana Constitution has persevered. Indeed, it has become the envy of other states that seek to copy it. Still, some wonder if the document’s protections can survive as more industries and people put new pressures on the Big Sky. (What, exactly, are those protections? And who is being protected? And why are some not being protected?)
When the last Constitutional Convention delegate added his signature on March 22, 1972, a new Montana Constitution was born. Those 100 citizen delegates were elected by their fellow Montanans to spend two months forging a guiding document to replace the archaic 1889 constitution. (Archaic? I'll post the 1889 constitution elsewhere. It's not perfect, it's long, but it's hardly archaic.)
Four decades later, only around 30 of those original delegates are alive to tell of the effort and sacrifices made to reach a consensus on every detail of the 1972 document, down to individual words such as “clearly” and “quiet.” (So the author of the article can only find two of them, both leftists, to talk to?)
Delegates Daphne Bugbee Jones of Missoula and Grace Bates of Bozeman both died a little more than a year ago. Among those still living are Bozeman’s Dorothy Eck and Missoula’s Bob Campbell. (A Helena attorney.)
Eck and Campbell worked on the Declaration of Rights committee, helping to write, among others, the unique rights to a clean and healthful environment and to privacy. Neither is protected by the U.S. Constitution, nor are they included in many other states’ constitutions. (This is a fundamental error in thinking. Rights do not exist because they are mentioned in a constitution. Rights do not disappear because of them not being included. Rights exist apart from government, and government is charged with securing [safeguarding] these rights.)
Eck was particularly interested in open-government laws after fighting to follow secretive state legislative dealings during the 1960s. “We had a hard time getting the balance between privacy and transparency,” Eck said. “That’s still something we deal with, especially now with (political action committee) groups wanting to withhold information. People are always trying to keep things private.” (Privacy for some, but not others? A person cannot give money to an organization without disclosing how much and to whom, but they somehow still have a right to privacy? How does that work?)
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling allowed corporations and PACs to spend millions on campaign advertising, and many PACs hide the identity of their contributors . (No, no, no! It did no such thing! This totally false meme has been advanced ever since the ruling. You can read about what Citizens United really did here and here.).
Eck said she is cheered to see bills now in the state Legislature that would extend the right to know by requiring disclosure of campaign contributors.
“Even if we can’t limit the amount of spending, we’re still thinking we have the right to know who is putting this money in,” Eck said.
Including the state’s other unique right — a clean and healthful environment — was the most controversial and difficult decision made by the delegates, Campbell said.
Coal mining at Colstrip had begun just six years before the convention, and Montanans only needed to look at Butte to see how unregulated mining could damage the environment. (I sincerely doubt that mining was unregulated. But look at the issue here. There is a claim that mining was destroying the environment, and that probably was true. But here we have a CONSTITUTIONAL statement about the environment that comes to bear AGAINST A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. The purpose of a constitution is to define and limit government!)
If the right to a clean environment was to start anywhere, Montana was the place.
“There’s always been a tension between those that wanted to protect our environment and the people that want to extract natural resources,” Campbell said. (Exactly. Because a constitution is no place to make something illegal amongst the People. The legislature can and does pass laws regarding the behavior of people. The constitution is not the place to do that.)
At one point, aviator Charles Lindbergh urged the delegates to include environmental protection in their constitution. (Lindbergh was born in Detroit. Why his opinion about Montana law should matter is anyone's guess.)
“One of the things he said was, ‘The most important thing you can do is to write environmental laws that are as strong as you possibly can to keep Montana the way it is,’” Eck said. “I always thought that made a difference.” (In other words, Ms. Eck had an agenda, and it was the same as Lindbergh, so she found someone to lend weight to her argument.)
The rights aren’t new anymore, but they continue to be challenged. The Montana Farm Bureau Federation sued unsuccessfully to revoke the entire constitution in 1972, mainly to eliminate the environmental right. David McClure, a longtime farm bureau president, said the bureau claimed the constitution didn’t get approval from the majority of Montanans who voted in the 1972 general election. The constitution received 50.1 percent of the votes, but not every voter weighed in on the constitution issue. The farm bureau argued that those who abstained didn’t vote in favor. The state Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that the abstentions didn’t count, so the constitution passed. (Interesting. So the Montana supreme court decided the outcome? Does anyone remember the outcry from the Left when Bush v. Gore was decided?)
Today, the farm bureau continues to chafe under the environmental right. (Isn't it interesting that a private organization is characterized as chafing due to a provision of the constitution? How can any other party besides government be restricted by a constitution?) The language is too vague and open-ended, McClure said. “Many groups have used it any way they want to interpret it,” McClure said. “We don’t like it when it’s used to threaten our livelihood. They try to use the courts or the Legislature to attack our way of life.”
Last year, however, the farm bureau itself used the clean and healthful environment clause in a lawsuit to keep the state from enlarging the bison winter range in Park County. (Notice how the author jumps on a perceived hypocrisy to invalidate the opposition? Did she do this with Eck or Campbell?)
Coal mining at Colstrip had begun just six years before the convention, and Montanans only needed to look at Butte to see how unregulated mining could damage the environment. (I sincerely doubt that mining was unregulated. But look at the issue here. There is a claim that mining was destroying the environment, and that probably was true. But here we have a CONSTITUTIONAL statement about the environment that comes to bear AGAINST A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. The purpose of a constitution is to define and limit government!)
If the right to a clean environment was to start anywhere, Montana was the place.
“There’s always been a tension between those that wanted to protect our environment and the people that want to extract natural resources,” Campbell said. (Exactly. Because a constitution is no place to make something illegal amongst the People. The legislature can and does pass laws regarding the behavior of people. The constitution is not the place to do that.)
At one point, aviator Charles Lindbergh urged the delegates to include environmental protection in their constitution. (Lindbergh was born in Detroit. Why his opinion about Montana law should matter is anyone's guess.)
“One of the things he said was, ‘The most important thing you can do is to write environmental laws that are as strong as you possibly can to keep Montana the way it is,’” Eck said. “I always thought that made a difference.” (In other words, Ms. Eck had an agenda, and it was the same as Lindbergh, so she found someone to lend weight to her argument.)
The rights aren’t new anymore, but they continue to be challenged. The Montana Farm Bureau Federation sued unsuccessfully to revoke the entire constitution in 1972, mainly to eliminate the environmental right. David McClure, a longtime farm bureau president, said the bureau claimed the constitution didn’t get approval from the majority of Montanans who voted in the 1972 general election. The constitution received 50.1 percent of the votes, but not every voter weighed in on the constitution issue. The farm bureau argued that those who abstained didn’t vote in favor. The state Supreme Court ruled 3-2 that the abstentions didn’t count, so the constitution passed. (Interesting. So the Montana supreme court decided the outcome? Does anyone remember the outcry from the Left when Bush v. Gore was decided?)
Today, the farm bureau continues to chafe under the environmental right. (Isn't it interesting that a private organization is characterized as chafing due to a provision of the constitution? How can any other party besides government be restricted by a constitution?) The language is too vague and open-ended, McClure said. “Many groups have used it any way they want to interpret it,” McClure said. “We don’t like it when it’s used to threaten our livelihood. They try to use the courts or the Legislature to attack our way of life.”
Last year, however, the farm bureau itself used the clean and healthful environment clause in a lawsuit to keep the state from enlarging the bison winter range in Park County. (Notice how the author jumps on a perceived hypocrisy to invalidate the opposition? Did she do this with Eck or Campbell?)
So long as the constitution is in place, groups that disagree with it have only one recourse — outside of writing a new constitution: amendments. But constitutional amendments require passage by two-thirds of the Legislature, not just a majority.
Despite the hard road toward passage, a few bills propose amendments each legislative session. This time around, six amendments were proposed, but only one remains active. It would change the term limits of state legislators.
“They will continue to try to amend it,” Eck said. “I think they will continue to lessen the power of the Supreme Court; some states have done that. I hope that doesn’t happen.” (Note the word "they." Usually the left will use the "inclusive" consensus-building word "we" as a proxy for collective action. So "they" must be the eeevil ones, the throwbacks, the ones who represent big business interests. Contrast Ms. Eck's use of "they" with her use of "we" just a couple of paragraphs ago.)
Members of the 2011 Legislature tried to pass an amendment to change the environmental right to read “a clean, healthful and economically productive environment.” The bill received two-thirds of the House vote but failed in the Senate.
“I think there’s a lot more contentiousness over resource development than there was 40 years ago,” said Rep. Franke Wilmer, D-Bozeman. “We’ve always been an extractive- and agricultural-based economy, but now tourism rivals the agricultural sector. So the same resources have economic value in both sectors but under competing conditions.” (Leftist number three pops up. Why is she being quoted? Can the author find a politician from the Right to counterbalance these opinions?)
Having worked so hard (Oh how they worked! Such noble sacrifice, only to have it be challenged by ignorant rubes and exploitative corporations!) to craft an acceptable constitution, delegates may feel an anxious twinge if their words are changed, or they may see bills that violate the constitution. But Campbell said the surviving delegates mostly stay out of the legislative process.
“We watch it, but we have a strong history of not going out and saying which bills we think are unconstitutional — it just wouldn’t be right,” Campbell said.
While groups inside Montana try to eliminate the environmental right, (Again, note the pejorative language. These groups are trying to take away our rights!) other states have coveted it. Since Montana’s constitution was ratified, 20 states have added some level of environmental protection to their constitutions.
Other states are still trying. Representatives in Vermont, in particular, have sought to amend its constitution to include environmental rights for more than a decade.
Montana law requires that voters be allowed every 20 years to choose whether to hold another Constitutional Convention. The 1972 convention was initiated in 1970 when Montanans voted 2-1 in favor.
In 2010, a comfortable majority — 58.5 percent — supported the existing constitution by voting against a convention, but that was a big drop compared to 1990, when 82 percent rejected a convention.
A couple of things may account for the changing attitudes. Between 1990 and 2010, the state added almost 200,000 people, almost one-fifth of its population. New residents wouldn’t know what it took to put the constitution in place, and some newcomers still see Montana as many 19th-century businessmen did: as a place to exploit. (The author states these suppositions [the source of which is not documented] as if they were fact, using hyperbolic terms like "exploit." This a a deliberate choice to frame the issue, which has no place in a news story.)
Also, the 2010 vote landed on the heels of the Great Recession, when people across the country were unhappy with government in general. If that unhappiness persists until 2030, voters may choose to convene another Constitutional Convention.
But a new convention doesn’t mean a better constitution will result. It would have to pass through the same processes of compromise as in 1972.
“People don’t like to open the door because once you do, anything goes — everything goes back on the table,” Wilmer said. “It’s a lot less risky to just amend it, although that’s not easy either.”
A new constitution would have to be approved by the delegates and then by Montana residents. Today’s partisan divide would make passage harder, by all accounts.
The constitution that protects the environment also protects agriculture, but McClure said urban populations now outnumber rural ones, so the balance of power would be different than in 1972.
“Ours was a time that was ripe for reform. I don’t know if we’d get the same document passed now,” Campbell said. “We’re happy with the way we wrote it, and I think it’s the best constitution in the country.”
Laura Lundquist can be reached at 582-2638 or llundquist@dailychronicle.com
No comments:
Post a Comment