government discussion question due next week on friday night

Hello student demographer/economists…welcome to a rather sharp turn in our road (maybe a welcome one, after all that data stuff) We are now turning down a path that is equal parts legal theory & principle; constitutional history & culture, with current politics & policy issues folded in. What a recipe. Welcome to Texas government… let’s start with theory. The kind of theory that you must be able to relate to, and not view as cocktail party or talk radio conversation. In other words theory (ideas) about good, or at least effective governing (not politics). Situations like the current state budget “situation”, the state’s health care/insurance setting, inadequate education finances, or especially immigration and security remind us about the vitality and purpose of our constitutional design, and its limits for that matter. Stop for a second to reflect. I mentioned a few politically controversial items in the paragraph above. But they aren’t just that simple, or flimsy. What I mean is that politics is simplistic, while governance based on law is complex. Any simpleton can fill out a candidate form, and possibly get elected–then what? They are situations where a constitutional issue (Arizona police power, Florida and Texas Voting ID laws) or a constitutional provision (taxes, health care, etc) are the basis for the political problem. But constitutions aren’t absolute, are they? The important thing to learn now is how the realities of American/Texas citizenship, pertains to the state constitution (within the framework of the US Constitution). Thus, we need to compare the two constitutions to be able to learn, and thus analyze or critique. Caution: part of the comparison also involves history, and previous legal decisions. This is the way our system works…for 225 years. Politicians and wild-eyed activists often leave that part out, so they can blather about what the constitution means in a theoretical vacuum. You want a good example? Suggesting the repeal (negate) the 14th Amednment to the US Constitution’s clause that “all persons born here are US citizens” Or, repeal the 17th Amendment, which gave voters the ability to elect the two U.S. senators in each state. Huh? There are much more effective and likely measures to reform illegal immigration and its impacts, but this is an insult to the American people the constitution represents. Besides, the process to amend the US Constitution is very difficult and time-consuming–it would simply never happen. Maybe that’s why politicians make these statements.