Constitution Caucus is a Joke, Possibly an Illiterate One

by: Matt Singer

Tue Jan 18, 2011 at 11:37:05 AM MST

But let's forget the federal Constitution for a second, because there is fairly little in there that actually constrains the power of state governments to be activist (there are provisions, like the 14th Amendment, that limit their ability to do pernicious things like discriminate). So the question on these matters is what the Montana Constitution dictates.

The Montana Constitution famously dictates "All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment..." The right to a clean and healthful environment isn't just in the Constitution. It's the second right listed, right after self-government and popular sovereignty.

In fact, the Constitution later mandates "The state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Regarding education, the Constitution says, "It is the goal of the people to establish a system of education which will develop the full educational potential of each person. Equality of educational opportunity is guaranteed to each person of the state."

Cody Bloomsberg ought to schedule follow up interviews with Kerns and anyone else who considers herself or himself part of this "Constitutional caucus" and get their read on the Montana Constitution, the primary document they have obligations to represent and enforce. My guess is that we'll see their inability or refusal to read the initial intent very quickly.

Schweitzer: "Montana is Energy Country"

by: Turner

Sat Aug 14, 2010 at 10:19:15 AM MST

The second paragraph of his letter to me begins, "Montana is energy country. . . . Our world class energy resources - wind, oil and gas, biofuels, biomass, geothermal, and coal - are second to none in the United States."  He then goes on to explain how MSTI and five other huge transmission lines he's pushing are needed to create thousands of jobs and even to address global warming.

Inconveniently, MSTI's draft environmental impact study estimates that it will lead to approximately 59 full-time jobs for Montanans.  This from a billion dollar project!

But what especially struck me was how Schweitzer's catalog of Montana's energy sources sort of tacks coal on at the end, as though suggesting it's the least significant of the seven he lists.  Since coal accounts for most of the state's energy generation, this is at least misleading.  And I suspect that it's an effort to deceive.  

His list of supposed benefits from MSTI and other transmission projects is also misleading and deceptive.  His claim that it is to be a "green" wind-energy line ignores two facts:  (1) it is to be tied to the Colstrip coal-fired generation plants, and (2) NorthWestern Energy Company, which wants to operate MSTI, has secured no contracts with wind-energy producers.

It's easy enough to see what's really being planned.  And it doesn't sound very "green" to me.

The preamble to the Montana Constitution reads, "We the people of Montana, grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of life, equality of opportunity, and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future generations, do ordain and establish this constitution."

For the governor, though, "Montana is energy country."  Its grand mountains and vast rolling plains are not for beauty but for industrialization.

Brian Schweitzer is the governor.  But he and his corporate friends don't get to tell us what kind of a state we live in.  We can see with our own eyes what a wonderful place our state is.  Just as we can imagine how horrible it will become if he gets his way.        

AG Allows Initiative Backers to Play "Bait-and-Switch" with Constitutional Rights

by: Montana Cowgirl

Thu Sep 03, 2009 at 17:06:06 PM MST

So why would he allow Rick Jore and Trevis Butcher to put forward another fraudulent ballot initiative (Yep, this same Butcher is on the board of this initiative campaign)  --this time,  an initiative to amend the constitution to strip away the privacy rights of all Montana women without tipping off the voters as to what this proposed initiative  would really do and its exorbitant costs to Montana taxpayers?

First, there are some obvious problems with the latest Butcher/Jore amendment:

If passed, it would prevent a woman from getting an abortion - even if her life is in jeopardy - prevent treatments like in vitro fertilization, and allow legislators and the courts to dictate permissible activities and medical care for pregnant women.

I would think the AG would also be worried that the proposed initiative could seriously burden the court system by requiring court-appointed guardians to advocate for fertilized eggs and fetuses. Yet, the Attorney General didn't even bother request a fiscal impact statement on the potential costs to the state.

Maybe someone dropped the ball and this just fell through the cracks.

It couldn't have been a political decision--even arch religious conservative groups like the Montana Catholic Conference, Right to Life Montana and the Montana Family Foundation, have rejected this proposed initiative as too extreme.

It couldn't have been that he couldn't find substantive legal problems with the language. The Billings Gazette has already reported on some of the many legal problems with the language pointed out by Legislative Services Attorney David Niss such as

... the proposed ballot statements fail to make it clear that the three proposals apparently are intended to prohibit abortion.

You don't have to be an Attorney General to know that initiative language is supposed to tell voters what the initiative will actually do.   It has some other wacky legal implications too.  Implications that were pointed out for Bullock in this handy memo.

For example, the proposed initiative seeks to grant constitutional due process rights to all fertilized human eggs by amending the due process section of the Montana Constitution to define "person" as "from the beginning of the biological development." This definition is so broad that it could include unfertilized eggs and sperm, potentially impacting all sexual activity of men and women. Also, by requiring the Legislature to implement "this section by appropriate legislation," the initiative could remove every Montanans' current ability to pursue claims of due process violations.

Another Bad Constitutional Amendment Proposed by the GOP

by: Matt Singer

Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 09:33:38 AM MST

The Intelligent Discontent folks have already offered their, um, intelligent discontent. I'll be offering my, um, less intelligent discontent later.

What are your thoughts in the meantime?