Do-Over part 2

OK. I'm done with thinktanking on the realistic chance that there could be an initiative expunging all changes made to the CA constitution after a certain date. A friend of mine who is a constitutional lawyer said an initiative is not the right instrument for such a change. He said the Legislature could do it in a similar fashion to how it changed the Constitution in 1966 so legislators could become full-time employees of the state. But I seriously doubt the Legislature would ever undertake such a controversial proposal as wiping out large portions of the constitution.

So I'm back to cynically cracking on the idea of a constitution convention. In that vein, I propose a 30-second commercial that would promote the brilliant idea that is expunging all additions to the constitution after a certain date.

One thing before I get into writing the script for the commercial: I chose the slogan "California needs a Do-Over" because of the playground mentality the words "do-over" imply. I thought about California needs a mulligan, but that's so country club.

Anyway here's the script.

Opening scene.

Classroom. An elementary school teacher stands in front of the black board with the words "Structural Deficit" written upon it.

Teacher: "OK class, so when the state is obligated by law to spend more money than it takes in through taxes and other revenues, that's called a structural deficit."

Camera quickly pans to students sitting at their desks looking completely bored.

The recess bells rings and the students all jump up from their desks and rush for the door.

Next scene is kids playing four-square in the school yard. A little dexter looking boy with glasses and a bow tie serves the ball to a prissily dressed little girl. The camera follows the ball in slow motion as it just barely lands out of bounds.

Girl: "That serve was out of bounds. My serve."
Boy: "No it wasn't. That was a liner."
Girl: "You can't call a liner. The California Code of Four Square Rules clearly state in chapter 768, subsection B, liners may not be called without a yard duty present."
Boy: "No. If you had read carefully, you would have seen that subsection B is only in effect for noon recess as defined by Chapter 213 of the California Education Code. This is morning recess, so chapter 768, subsection B, has no relevance here.
Girl: "Does-to"
Boy: "Does-not"
Girl: "Does-to"
Boy: "Does-not"

As the "Does-to/Does-not" back and forth slowly becomes fainter and fainter, the camera pulls back to show all four kids standing in the squares. It moves in for a tight shot on a boy or girl looking completely apathetic with his or her arms folded across his or her chest. That child looks directly into the camera and screams: "Just call a do-over."

Last scene with voice over (I'm thinking Patrick Steward type voice). The screen says "Vote Yes on Prop. Whatever!" Voice says, "Expunge changes to the Constitution made after (whatever year). California needs a do-over."

Do-Over

So I commented on a blog post over at Fox and Hounds Daily. The post was about calling a constitutional convention to rewrite CA's constitution. I commented under the psuedonym O&R for Otto & Rhys, my sons. My first instinct was to cynically spoof the idea of a constitutional convention. I mean, seriously, the same interest groups and public officials who can't agree on raising taxes or cutting services will come together and put forth a coherent set of laws that will rule the land? Please. They've already caused enough problems extending and amending the original document. In fact, the new constitutional provisions and amendments are the reason people feel like we should start all over again. Isn't it?

So I wrote a what I thought was a comical comment. But now that I've gone thinktank on what I originally said, I'm not so sure my idea wouldn't work.

Here's what I said:

"Instead of a convention, how about an initiative that expunges all changes made to the CA constitution after a certain year. I can see the campaign slogan now: "Vote Yes on Prop. Whatever! California needs a do-over." Seriously though, rather than starting from the beginning, picking a date from which to slash and burn might work better. Yeah, we'd have a kind of wild-west regulatory environment for a while since wide swaths of the constitution would literally vanish overnight. But the vacuum left behind would force the Legislature and the Governor to really focus their energies and limit distractions. What worked before but was lost would easily return. What didn't won't. If things really go awry, there's always the remaining portion of the Constitution to fall back upon."

I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't know if it's even legal to pick a date and expunge parts of the constitution. But it seems to me if expunging parts of the constitution is legal, that would be an easier political route than trying to write the whole thing all over again.

Whether Report

I must say I'm pretty enthusiastic about being on the Safeway/Bicycles Plus racing team this year. So enthusiastic, as a matter of fact, that I'm considering a one-hour endurance commute through rush hour traffic just to pick up my team biking shorts.

The first shipment from Pactimo, our team's clothing manufacturer, didn't contain the shorts. Yesterday an email notified us the shorts are at the shop in Folsom. I've been holding back an urge to neglect my job and get out there right away. I feel like I did in little league when coaches passed out uniforms. I'm pretty sure I won't sleep in my cycling kit like I did my baseball gear way back when. Maybe I would if I was single.

So whether to go or not to go? I guess I'll do the mature thing and go home to my wife and kids after work. Growing up ain't easy.

Tyranny of the Majority

Assemblymember Hector De La Torre from Los Angeles introduced a bill that would expunge a despicable ghost from California's past. While his intention is commendable, I don't think we should eliminate a piece of our history serving as a vivid reminder to future generations of just how wrong popular opinion can be sometimes.

First a little background on the origins of De La Torre's bill:

During the first half of the 20th century, housing developers inserted covenants in deeds to their new homes which, in effect, created legally enforceable "whites only" neighborhoods. While in the title business, I saw many of these covenants. From my recollection, the offensive language typically begin: "Only members of the Caucasian race may hold title to this real property."

The Supreme Court struck down these clauses in 1948 (That's according to an AP story. I Googled for the opinion but came up empty.) While these racist clauses are now legally unenforceable, they remain on title deeds as part of the property's legal description.

De La Torre's bill would require someone (title companies or county record keepers) to erase the language from all title deeds carrying it. I saw thousands of these deeds containing that language while working in Santa Cruz and Sacramento Counties. My guess is there are millions of deeds in California containing that language. Not surprisingly, title companies and county recorders oppose De La Torre's bill because of the extra costs they'd incur implementing the new law.

While I agree the financial aspect might be onerous, my opposition to the bill is more philosophical. (A surprising plot twist from a guy who goes by Thinktank to be sure.)

According to popular opinion in California at the time, it was fine and dandy for developers to include racist clauses in deeds. The thinking probably was creating "whites only neighborhoods" would keep property values high. While popular opinion has since changed dramatically, the fact remains a majority of Californians once believed segregated housing was something the government should enforce.

As every 9th grader learns, our Founding Fathers created a system of checks and balance to protect US citizens from tyranny of the majority. Yet, popular opinion still has the ability to drive policymakers into positions that clearly hurt a minority. Government enforcement of racist housing clauses are a case in point.

Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. Going with the flow is comfortable to be sure. But progress is hard fought. It was easy being nice to popular people in school and thereby becoming popular yourself. But the kid who had his or her nose in a book probably gained the most in the long run.

So when we go about trying to erase from the past instances when government followed what was popular, we rob future generations the opportunity to remember just how fallible popular opinion can be.