|
On targeted reform |
|||
|
Opinion March 24, 2003 If you're one of the growing number of Alabamians who understand the need for reform of the state's 1901 constitution, you might circle April 2 on your calendar. That's the date Gov. Bob Riley's 34-member Alabama Citizens' Constitution Commission will present its proposal, after being vetted by Riley, to the Legislature. The commission will not recommend a new constitution, per se. Nor will it suggest a constitutional convention, which is supported by many reform advocates. Instead, it will propose a series of specific changes. Such changes, Riley believes, can do what needs to be done to the constitution without going through the difficulty of a convention. One subject the commission considered was recompilation, a process by which a new amendment would reorganize, streamline and generally clean up the cumbersome document. So why does the constitution of 1901 need to be "recompiled''? At more than 700 amendments, it's too long. And the frequency with which amendments are proposed and ratified seems to be increasing. That fact alone underscores the document's inadequacy to deal with modern realities. The constitution is cluttered with amendments that apply only to one county. Most of them are not controversial. The constitution of 1901 is full of provisions that have been repealed by later amendments or nullified by court decisions. In addition, the document is disorganized. A provision dealing with one subject may be in one place, but a provision dealing with the same subject may be many pages removed. The governor's commission looked at recompilation. It does not offer specific proposals. It does offer some options for Riley to consider: Local amendments could be placed differently so that a reader could study the statewide provisions without being distracted by the local amendments. At the same time, provisions and amendments would be reorganized according to a logical plan, not merely by the chronological order in which the provisions were enacted. The repealed provisions or amendments could be removed entirely. So could sections and amendments that have been nullified by court decisions. There are arguments on both sides of the question. One school of thought advocates cleaning up the document as much as possible; the other believes the invalid provisions must be retained so the resulting document will be historically accurate. Ultimately, of course, the unwieldy nature of the constitution of 1901 is secondary to the errors, inadequacies and ill-advised limitations imposed by the original document. Fixing the substance is more important than polishing up the style and organization. If the latter must be sacrificed for the former, the trade-off will be well worth it. Return to: Constitutional Reform ~ In the News Return to: Editorial Index |
|||
| Alabama Citizens for
Constitutional Reform Foundation, Inc. P.O. Box 34 Montgomery, Alabama 36101-0034 E-mail: accr@constitutionalreform.org |
|||
| Home Page | Return to Top of Page | |||
|
