Questions about Missouri Amendment 2?
October 25, 2006 5:30 PM Subscribe
Missouri Amendment 2: Why an amendment? Why not a statute? (more questions inside)
I've read the amendment, but all the analysis I've read is incredibly biased, I'd like to actually discuss it's merits and pitfalls with some rational individuals. The full text of the amendment is here.
I am pro stem-cell-research but my questions are these:
-Why an amendment? Why not a statute? I'm uncomfortable with writing something so specific into the constitution of the state
-A big criticism voiced by opponents is that it will give tax-payer money to corporations doing this research. How? I can't find any direct evidence of this. Unless they mean that research departments that receive federal grants will use that grant money for this research. I think that argument is equally valid against any sort of research, or the NEA for that matter.
I do understand that the amendment does redefine to an extent "cloning" by allowing somatic cell nuclear transfer and beginning of the existence of the clone at implantation in a uterus as opposed to when the DNA is transferred and the cell begins to divide—that strikes me as somewhat slippery and makes me ask again, why an amendment and not a law, subject to legislative discussion prior to approval. As much as I'm pro-science this amendment angle makes me suspicious of . . . something.
I've read the amendment, but all the analysis I've read is incredibly biased, I'd like to actually discuss it's merits and pitfalls with some rational individuals. The full text of the amendment is here.
I am pro stem-cell-research but my questions are these:
-Why an amendment? Why not a statute? I'm uncomfortable with writing something so specific into the constitution of the state
-A big criticism voiced by opponents is that it will give tax-payer money to corporations doing this research. How? I can't find any direct evidence of this. Unless they mean that research departments that receive federal grants will use that grant money for this research. I think that argument is equally valid against any sort of research, or the NEA for that matter.
I do understand that the amendment does redefine to an extent "cloning" by allowing somatic cell nuclear transfer and beginning of the existence of the clone at implantation in a uterus as opposed to when the DNA is transferred and the cell begins to divide—that strikes me as somewhat slippery and makes me ask again, why an amendment and not a law, subject to legislative discussion prior to approval. As much as I'm pro-science this amendment angle makes me suspicious of . . . something.
Oh, those wondering about the Missouri Constitution, it's here, and those wondering about MarvinTheCat's link to sos.mo.gov, in this context, "sos" is "Secretary of State."
A big criticism voiced by opponents is that it will give tax-payer money to corporations doing this research. How?
It won't, but by putting it in the constitution, it would make it possible for the Legislature to try to do so later, if they so choose. Missouri is stupid when it comes to money, and what the legislature can actually do with tax money is pretty constrained -- basically, you can build highways, anything else is up for a fight.
posted by eriko at 5:51 PM on October 25, 2006
A big criticism voiced by opponents is that it will give tax-payer money to corporations doing this research. How?
It won't, but by putting it in the constitution, it would make it possible for the Legislature to try to do so later, if they so choose. Missouri is stupid when it comes to money, and what the legislature can actually do with tax money is pretty constrained -- basically, you can build highways, anything else is up for a fight.
posted by eriko at 5:51 PM on October 25, 2006
Why an amendment? Why not a statute?
Because a statute can be declared unconstitutional, whereas a constitutional ammendment can't be, uh, unconstitutional. At least not for a while (haha).
There are some people who think that there's a legal argument for the unconstitutionality of stem cell research. Putting this in the constitution voids their arguments.
posted by chickletworks at 6:12 PM on October 25, 2006
Because a statute can be declared unconstitutional, whereas a constitutional ammendment can't be, uh, unconstitutional. At least not for a while (haha).
There are some people who think that there's a legal argument for the unconstitutionality of stem cell research. Putting this in the constitution voids their arguments.
posted by chickletworks at 6:12 PM on October 25, 2006
Well, the people can't vote for a statute directly. Amending the constitution is direct democracy at work, and may be less difficult in practice than getting a statute passed. Legislation takes a lot more horse trading and compromising that a constitutional amendment doesn't.
I think it's quite appropriate for the people of a state to vote directly on an issue like stem cell research that triggers their fundamental values. And because electoral politics makes legislators so ridiculously cemented into their ideological pigeon holes (pro-life or pro-choice), a constitutional amendment directly by the people on these kinds of issues can better reflect what people actually want.
Also, the function of state constitutions is different than the function of the federal constitution. State constitutions are usually much more statute-like than the federal constitution. They're much easier to amend, and so it's much easier to undo those amendments.
For example, in Missouri to get the constitutional question on the ballot in the first place, you just need a majority of assembly votes or I think 8% approval by the voters if it's an initiative. Then, once the issue is on the ballot, you only need a majority of voters to approve it. But to amend the federal constitution you need at the outset a 2/3 vote of congress or the states to even get the amendment on the ballot, then 3/4 of states have to ratify it. That's a much higher hurdle. Also, every 20 years Missouri voters automatically have the option to reopen the constitution entirely.
posted by footnote at 6:48 AM on October 26, 2006
I think it's quite appropriate for the people of a state to vote directly on an issue like stem cell research that triggers their fundamental values. And because electoral politics makes legislators so ridiculously cemented into their ideological pigeon holes (pro-life or pro-choice), a constitutional amendment directly by the people on these kinds of issues can better reflect what people actually want.
Also, the function of state constitutions is different than the function of the federal constitution. State constitutions are usually much more statute-like than the federal constitution. They're much easier to amend, and so it's much easier to undo those amendments.
For example, in Missouri to get the constitutional question on the ballot in the first place, you just need a majority of assembly votes or I think 8% approval by the voters if it's an initiative. Then, once the issue is on the ballot, you only need a majority of voters to approve it. But to amend the federal constitution you need at the outset a 2/3 vote of congress or the states to even get the amendment on the ballot, then 3/4 of states have to ratify it. That's a much higher hurdle. Also, every 20 years Missouri voters automatically have the option to reopen the constitution entirely.
posted by footnote at 6:48 AM on October 26, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
Lots of reasons. The biggest one is Missouri's tax issues, in particular, the limits on the State's tax income, and the fact that sticking stuff into the Constitution means that it's done, rather than fought over in the courts.
Missouri's constitution has a section that explicitly states that you can play Bingo. (Article III:39(a))
posted by eriko at 5:45 PM on October 25, 2006