One thing I’ve noticed in New Hampshire is all the politicians and talking heads talk about our state constitution a lot. I’m not saying they always abide by it, but at least they acknowledge it.
I have lived in other states, like New Jersey, where I don’t remember it ever being mentioned at all.
What about your state?
This is (so far) an IMHO, not a General Question. Let’s try not to turn it into a Great Debate.
bibliophage
moderator, GQ
Darn. Just blew a beautifully written response that took over 20 min. to write due to a misplaced button hit. Oh, well, briefly the gist was:
In Puerto Rico we get the COmmonwealth Constitution discussed all the time. This may have to do with our unresolves political status, even though in the document itself it says it is subordinate to the US Constitution.
Even so, the Layman will still talk about his “1st Amendment” or “5th Amendment” rights even when his words make it clear he’s referring to the Commonwealth’s Bill of Rights (which has quite a few differences with the Elder Document)
In Maryland I don’t think I EVER heard of the State Constitution being discussed as the document that protects the Marylander people’s rights and sovereignty. Only discussions of technical issues about courts organization and the COmptroller’s authority.
Mostly this is IMHO because in many states the Constitution (and I have read or at least tried to read about a dozen of them) tends to get encumbered with holdover articles, provisional sections, technical amendments and schedules that keep getting appended at the end, including stuff about such things as water resource districts and county tax assesments and it becomes a really long, boring document that just can’t move you like the National constitution can.
Yeah, yeah, we taught clean politics to the rest of youse guys.
(Quit snickering; we also spawned Cecil and The Dope. Don’t make us hurt you.)
Constitutions are basically paper; the crunch comes with the politcal clout to make them stick–upwards and down. And that includes the whole flypaper knot of words, courts, ballyhoo and popular ignorance.
True fact: laws are only as strong as the people standing ready to enforce them–in whatever gritty, unworthy, compromised form they take. Politics are never simple or unmixed, but they can lay killer groundwork.
If, of course, people know what’s being decided and are cognizant of subtleties. It’s always amazed me that people get their designer undies in a twist over media-hyped presidential crap while canny, killer state and local decisions go begging.
Good guestion but it isn’t just state constitutions; it’s also state court and district opinion…As a matter of fact it’s the whole Wizard of Oz Sydrome. That man behind the curtain is always Washington. Local will always drives the monster, if people’d just remember it. Laws are what people are willing to back up.
Veb
Whose state has some of the toughest, realistically defensible laws which happen to be close to her heart
Uh, TVeblen,was that a yes or a no?
Okay, I’m not 100% positive about this (my dad the lawyer is watching a movie right now and I don’t want to bug him), but I believe that all state laws are automatically added to the California state constitution. So there isn’t really a point to talking about the constitution in and of itself, it makes just as much sense to talk about state laws.
Anyway, no, politicians don’t talk about the CA state constitution.
I went to college in Illinois. To graduate, I had to pass a test on the state constitution.
Now I live in Wisconsin. There’s recently been some talk about the state constitution because some hunters want to amend it to guarantee the “right” to hunt.
Every once in a while a state supreme court decision will reference the state constitution.
Other than that, I’ve never heard much of anything about any state constitution in a state where I’ve lived. During sevreal of the skirmishes over same-sex marriage a few years ago, the state constitutions were much in the news. Judges in Alaska and Hawaii each found that provisions of their state’s constitution demanded the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples absent a compelling state interest not to (each constitution, along with California’s and I think a few others were amended by state referendum to outlaw same-sex marriage), and the Vermont constitution yielded a ruling requiring the state to offer all the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples (the “civil union” law).
To the degree you make it work.
YMMV.
Words have power…and legal-type words are no exception.
The degree to which “they” give lip service to your state constitution–or local ordinances or whatever–depends entirely on YOUR will. The paper only has teeth to the degree actual people get involved, compromised and stubborn about making the words real.
The process ain’t pretty or easy–but it works. If everyday people are willing to put in the thankless grunt work to make the words work, miracles happen.
Free, democratic, represenative government is a privilge people have sweated, bled and died for. Many people don’t know the laws that govern them, even though they have full power and responsibility.
I can’t think of a stupider, tragic, self-indulgent waste.
Veb
Wisconsins Constitution get’s brought up alot. We had quite a few legal cases that hinged on the constitutions wording regarding the lottery credit. Also, Some store owner is bringing up a case regarding the right to bear arms clause in it.
TVeblen, you’re still avoiding the question. I didn’t ask what anyone should do, I asked whether they even mention it.
Well, that’s probably because we live in one of the states who takes states’ rights vs fed rights most seriously. I mean, look at Goals 2000, NH lost out on millions of dollars of suplimental fedral funding because the state didn’t want to give up any control of curriculum layout. Which is odd, since as far as I can tell, MA, which was a goals 2000 recipiant, teaches the same high school and middle school subjects in the same order… I think we live in a fairly unique state in regards to how important the state’s constitution is considered.
I’m from Missouri, and you can bet your butt they pay more then lip service to the state constitution over here. The Missouri Supreme Court will smack down the General Assembly’s laws in a heartbeat if they step on the Missouri Constitution, and they’ve done so numerous times.
It is not unheard of for state courts to interpret state constitutional provisions more broadly than the federal courts interpret the U.S. constitutional provisions, even when the provisions are susbtantially the same. Case in point: the infamous Bowers v. Hardwicke decision, where the U.S. Supreme Court upheld some state’s law (Tennessee, I think) against homosexual sodomy, saying that it did not contravene the right to privacy implied in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. The courts of Tennessee (or whatever state it was), relying on the right to privacy implied in their own state’s constitution, found the other way and smacked down the sodomy law.
State constitutions are alive and kicking, and they kick major butt!
Well, seeing as I live in the only state that allows civil unions, our constitution gets talked about a LOT! Whether the unions are or aren’t constitutional, etc…Both sides use it to defend their viewpoint. Ugly, ugly political battles here, my friends.
The state was Tennessee, and what the USSC found was that homosexuals do not have a right to privacy under the federal constitution. You are correct that the Georgia supreme court later overturned the state’s sodomy law under the state constitution, although I think there was an equal protection component to its decision as well. Several other courts have also invalidated their state’s sodomy laws under the state constitution.
All laws passed in California are not automatically attached to the state constitution. Go to a law library sometime and ask to look at the California Codes. There will be over 100 volumes. Go ask for a copy of the California Consitution, it will be in a booklet.
What happens in California, especially with initiatives, is that supporters of the initiatives will put them on the ballot as constitutional amendments, and not statutes.
Why? Because once something is in the Constitution, it can only be changed by having the voters repealing it or through a court challenge. If you make your initiative a statute, the legislature could subsequently pass another law to repeal what the voters just passed, although that is usually not done as a matter of politics.
So, California’s most famous initiative, the 1979 property tax reduction initiative known as Proposition 13, is part of the California Constitution. If the legislature ever wanted to repeal it, it would have to go on the ballot and the state as a whole would have to vote on it to repeal it. And that ain’t gonna happen.
The California Constitution is significantly longer than the U.S. Constitution, but it’s also significantly shorter than the California Codes.
In California litigation, the privacy provision of the California Constitution is invoked quite a bit when conducting discovery where a party seeks medical records or tax records from the adversary.
Florida’s constitution is discussed quite a bit, as it both explicitly protects private gun ownership, and prohibits a state income tax.
Also, it’s too easy to amend, and often gets mired down with silly ammendments, such as a constitutional requirement to build a overly expensive, unnecesary bullet train.
There’s been a LOT of reference to the state constitution of late. The governor is desperately trying to get a state income tax passed before the end of his term, even though the state constitution specifically prohibits an income tax! Interestingly enough, the state supreme court says that it WON’T throw out an income tax even if its enacted WITHOUT an amendment to the state’s constitution! Needless to say, thing’s have gotten interesting around here of late. There’s been some riots at the capital and the governor had a new mansion built complete with walls and guard towers! If the income tax does get passed and no one manages to convince the courts to toss it out, things could get REALLY interesting!
Michigan checking in
Since I’m employed by a state institution (albeit a damned autonomous one) I am technically a state employee. When I started working here I had to sign something saying I’d uphold the MI Constitution. I found it hilarious at the time, since I was a grad student employee and thought of myself as just passing through until I got my degree. But for what that’s worth, at least it means the constitution gets some attention. Presumably with more seriousness by some employees than it was by me, at the time.
Aw jeez…
No, the state was Georgia.