< PREVIOUS ] [ 1996 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
The local newspapers have been getting their annual
subsidy from the state -- page after page of Proposed
Constitutional Amendments and Laws Referred and
Initiated,
all paid advertising charged at legal
rates.
Not that I have anything against this. When I owned a small newspaper, I needed the money, and I doubt the economics of small-town publishing have changed.
Twenty years ago, though, the real money came from big business. Do-gooders produced many ballot proposals -- bottle deposits, no more nuclear power plants, etc.
Corporate Colorado responded with big ads which explained that even though grocery stores didn't have room for returned cans and bottles, they did have room for beer and wine, or that the average electric consumer generated only an aspirin tablets worth of nuclear waste each year, and that really wasn't worth worrying about.
Alas, ballot issues these days don't alarm big money.
One current proposal would expand powers of petition, which should thrill some friends who have been trying to figure out how to force the county to repeal its building code. They wanted to petition and get a referendum, but discovered that you can't do that with a county government.
The county isn't about to repeal the code on its own, since the building department operates at a profit. Yet my friends argue that the only way we can avoid being overrun by tasteful People of Money is to allow shacks and trailer houses to sprout throughout the county.
Another proposal gives government agencies a monopoly on trapping and poisoning cute furry creatures. There's a long campaign-reform act, doubtless full of loopholes. The state land board could quit managing for maximum return, and another amendment removes our right to choose our own county sheriffs.
Trinidad wants some small-stakes gambling, to save its historic buildings the same way they have in Cripple Creek, Black Hawk and Central City -- gut the innards, gussy up the fronts and drive out all commerce except gambling.
Trinidad may have a depressed economy at the moment, but
it is a charming place -- handsome Victorian downtown,
brick-paved streets, abundant scenery nearby. Forget
gambling to improve its economy. Trinidad will soon be
discovered,
and they'll be worried about parking and
affordable housing, just like the rest of us in what used
to be pleasant places to live.
There's also Amendment 17 for Parental Rights.
Article II, section 3 of our state constitution now says
that All persons have certain natural, essential and
inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right
of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of
acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of
seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
To that, Amendment 17 would add and of parents to
direct and control the upbringing, education, values, and
discipline of their children.
My liberal friends say this could destroy public schools, social-service agencies, recreation programs and the like.
Their fears are misplaced because our state constitution is meaningless. For instance, it prohibits the consolidation of parallel railroads, and the UP-SP merger just rolled through to the approval of our governor, who has on several occasions sworn to uphold that constitution.
I can think of several dozen ways of exercising my
natural, essential and inalienable right
to seek
and obtain happiness
-- ways that would have armed
government thugs on my doorstep, ready to haul me away
because my blood might not meet current purity
standards.
Or just ask the Truax family about the right of
enjoying
one's life if Denver police are around.
The rights supposedly guaranteed in our state
constitution are just words on paper that no one takes
seriously, and adding parental rights
won't make the
slightest difference.
But suppose it did. Do they think only right-wing parents would exercise their rights?
Some parents might well demand that only evolution be taught to their children, and that the writings of the Marquis de Sade and Francois Rabelais should be incorporated in the high school curriculum.
And if a city passed a youth curfew law, wouldn't a parent be able to contest it on constitutional grounds, since that interferes with a parent's right to direct discipline and instill values?
More examples come to mind, ranging from under-age
drinking to R-rated movies and those Parental
Discretion
stickers on tapes and disks. If this
amendment passes, these are all unconstitutional intrusions
into the parental sphere.
The right-thinkers supporting this amendment must believe that every parent thinks the same way they do. But all parents don't, and this could be a lot of fun if it passes -- and if our state constitution meant anything.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1996 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >