Testimony on two constitutional amendments
Published March 2, 2007
JEFFERSON CITY — If passed by the Missouri General Assembly, voters in the state might have to decide the fate of two proposed constitutional amendments in November.
Testimony about an amendment to change Missouri's impeachment process and about an amendment to ensure a citizen's right to pray and worship in all public places was heard by the House Special Committee on General Laws Wednesday night.
Seven eminent jurists, or 34 senators?
Missouri's Constitution is the only state constitution that requires the state Supreme Court try impeached officials instead of the Senate. It was amended in 1945 after the Senate failed to convict the state treasurer, a former Senator, on corruption charges.
Rep. Edgar Emery, R-Lamar, introduced the bill that would return the Constitution to its pre-1945 form by having the Senate try impeached officials.
"This is purely a concern that our constitutional checks and balances have been compromised and a desire to restore that," Emery said.
Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis testified to the committee via telephone in support of the proposed amendment. Because lawyers are so skilled in influencing the judiciary, it is better to have an "encompassing interest," like the Senate, try impeachments to make sure that the judiciary does not become the prerogative of lawyers, he said.
"I think it's better to resort to first principles, the kind of first principles that James Madison outlined about why a blended separation of powers is better at protecting against tyranny," McGinnis said.
But Patrick McLarney, a representative from the Missouri Bar Association, testified against the bill, saying that in fact the bill does not reinforce the separation of powers because the legislature would be the only body able to police itself.
McLarney said he is worried that allowing the Senate to try impeachments would result in more impeachments used for political motives.
"If you have judges looking over their shoulders thinking, 'Gee, have I decided this right? Are they going to file impeachment proceedings over in the legislature against me?' then you don't have an impartial judiciary anymore," McLarney said.
Committee member Rep. Beth Low, D-Kansas City, echoed McLarney's concerns: "I always loathe to tinker with the Constitution when there's not an obvious problem."
Promoting understanding, or redundancy?
The other proposed amendment heard by the committee was a bill relating to people's first amendment rights. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Carl Bearden, R-St. Charles, would "ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary."
The bill also would require that all public schools conspicuously display the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The amendment, which would grant no new rights, is intended to clarify religious expression rights, which have been blurred, and to promote a greater understanding of the first amendment, Bearden said.
"They didn't have this problem 230 years ago with the First Amendment because everyone knew what it meant," he said.
Low began a lengthy dialogue with Bearden, saying the amendment would not accomplish its goals and was unnecessary.
"I would not disagree with your goal of protecting freedom of religion, free practice of religion or protecting freedom of speech," she said. "But our Constitution as it stands now already protects those things."
Kerry Messer of the Missouri Baptist Christian Life Commission testified in favor of the bill, saying that it was necessary to protect children's religious rights.
"We still live in a culture with systemic ignorance regarding religious liberty," he said.
