Constitution

GLENDALE — The idea of tearing up chunks of California’s Constitution and starting anew is gaining traction among area lawmakers and residents who say the state’s government has become overly complex and incapable of effectively solving problems. Local lawmakers have increasingly called for major government reforms as recent struggles to solve the state’s financial crises have hit walls, but only during the state’s latest budget stalemate have they become more receptive to proposals for a rewriting of major portions of the document that sets California’s legal foundation.

GLENDALE — The idea of tearing up chunks of California’s constitution and starting anew is gaining traction among area lawmakers and residents who say the state’s government has become overly complex and incapable of effectively solving problems. Local lawmakers have increasingly called for major government reforms as recent struggles to solve the state’s financial crises have hit walls, but only during the state’s latest budget stalemate have they become more receptive to proposals for a rewriting of major portions of the document that sets California’s legal foundation.

Over the years I have tried to explain to my students what the framers of our Constitution had in mind when they created the electoral college. For those of you who have struggled to understand why we have the voting system that we do, you might sympathize with youngsters likewise struggling to comprehend it for the first time. Part of my job is to explain how the system works, and invariably when I attempt to do that a discussion follows, the central question being, “Why doesn’t the presidency just go to the person who gets the most votes?

You are perhaps aware of the fact that if you are accused of a crime, you have a constitutional right to confront your accuser in court. Today?s question is, ?What happens if you kill your accuser before your case comes to trial?? This unusual issue is on its way up to the United States Supreme Court. In 2002, Dwayne Giles killed his former girlfriend Brenda Avie. Giles claimed that the shooting was in self defense, but the jury did not believe him and convicted him of first-degree murder.

The year is 1992. George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ross Perot are sparring over policies on a live, nationally televised presidential debate, and what strikes author Dave Kluge is they’re all spewing conflicting accounts of what’s provided or prohibited by the United States Constitution. It’s typical fare for such a political contest, but most alarming to Kluge, a former vice president of legal affairs for a national software company, was not that the candidates’ interpretations clashed.

Bob! Let's have a heart to heart. Have a seat! Pour yourself a drink and read these thoughts and when you're finished, read them again. The contents herein are on the final and believe me you're going to need an A to pass the course. I'm not a very reactionary guy, but I find it necessary to render some thoughts regarding a letter to the editor that ran in the Valley Sun a few weeks back ["True or False," by Bob Tanabe, Our Readers Write ? or Wrong, March 1]. Some of my friends got raked over the coals because of their political points of view.

Santa an inspiration ? like it or not I would like to address Ray Shelton of Glendale ("Reason must trump belief in Santa Claus," Mailbag, Monday). Although his letter was quite eloquent, and followed the form of the original letter by Francis P. Church, it did contain several flaws. In no particular order, I would like to answer back several of those points. First, I recall nothing in the Constitution of the United States that is anti-cross, so where does he find the Constitution versus the cross?

Perhaps we should begin to pay more attention to our Constitution and to where our leaders, on both sides of the aisle, are taking us. We are misinterpreting or just ignoring our Constitution, especially the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments, either intentionally or otherwise. While terrorism is a reality in this world of ours, it is my opinion that violating or eliminating our rights in the name of security is without merit and is dangerous. Once the rights that honor us with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are tinkered with or thrown asunder, they are difficult, if not impossible, to reinstate.

Like John L. Gregg, in his Monday letter, "Commentary on rights missed a few," I appreciated Dick Seeley's Community Commentary on the Constitution, "These are still words to live by," Oct. 2. Gregg is bothered, though, that Seeley "did pick and choose" from the Bill of Rights, implying that the right to bear arms was intentionally omitted, in what Gregg calls "typical, liberal fashion." That's quite a leap, as assumptions go, about liberals in general and Seeley, in particular.