http://www.missouricri.org/pr_072607.html

This is the worst abuse of public office when it comes to approving a constitutional ballot initiative. Unbelievable. Regardless of a person's stance on race preferences, the "rewrite" is a combative response to the original ballot language. Voting for such language is to vote AGAINST what the civil rights initiative is all about. When people cannot petition their government for reform without having the government rewrite their petition to mean the opposite, then we live in an Orwellian world.

Note the original language of the ballot:

“Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to prohibit any form of discrimination as an act of the state by declaring:

• The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting?"

Pretty simple and easy to understand.

Now, see if the following "redraft" by the State official conveys the meaning of the above and is "impartial":

"Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:

1. ban affirmative action programs designed to eliminate discrimination against, and improve opportunities for, women and minorities in public contracting, employment and education; and

2. allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to meet federal program funds eligibility standards as well as preferential treatment for bona fide qualifications based on sex?"

Jonathan J. Bean - 8/5/2007

Nice exchange. I edited for public consumption, per "Common Sense," but Thomas Paine (Common Sense) was a bit over the top too. LOL.

The Left-radicals have learned to use rhetoric to demonize their opponents, often inappropriately. In this case, I think it was an appropriate comparison. Perhaps adding a reference to WWGW (What Would George Washington) think, might have tempered and made more "conservative" the radical import of what they are doing in Missouri and elsewhere.

More to the point, the complete lack of respect for constitutions, state or federal, is of concern to libertarians. Many great writers (e.g., Milton Friedman, James Buchanan) have advocated constitutional amendments to limit government. Wasn't that the point of the original Constitution?

I just finished an anthology on Race and Liberty and am struck by how classical liberals fighting slavery, Jim Crow, etc. were often considered "nut jobs" in "acceptable" circles. They eventually one but it took a century or more.

Remember, folks, let's keep our eyes on the prize: a free society.

Keith Halderman - 8/4/2007

But the reality is that we are becoming more and more like the Soviet Union everyday in big ways and small. Look at the debate in Congress right now over replacing the secret FISA courts with the Attorney General's discretion. If the executive branch gets this unlimited power do you really believe that they will not eventually use it in the same way that the Soviet leaders did. Also, the secret courts were already a step in the Soviet direction to begin with. If people are going to be labeled nut jobs for pointing these similarities out then the struggle for freedom is already lost.

Common Sense - 8/3/2007

Yes, as a student of soviet history, I am aware of the thaws. However, I think the purpose of the list is to counter the general view that libertarians are nut jobs, and that we often have something sensible to say to the majority of HNN subscribers. Comparing Missouri bills to soviets, nazis, whatever--it sounds like the voice of fanatics.

Jonathan J. Bean - 8/3/2007

in periodic "thaws" of the communist states, the Leader would allow people to hang themselves in this and similar ways. Read the _Black Book of Communism_ and the voluminous literature on "historical communism."

Common Sense - 8/3/2007

Point well taken, but the USSR equation is a bit much.