Big Brother schemes

In a recent editorial regarding Issue 1, the writer compliments those who demand an “independent” judiciary in order to have checks and balances among the three branches of government. Actually, the three branches are already independent by the design of their responsibilities under the Constitution. That is the heart of our system and the reason for our success. Checks and balances come into play when at least one branch can affect or limit how another branch carries out its assigned tasks. For instance, the allowed use of judicial discretion is going to be much more extensive if the power comes only from the Supreme Court. If the Legislature is involved, it may affect or limit the misuse of such power. Currently it requires twothirds of each house to do that. Issue 1 reduces that to three-fifths of each house. So not enough improvement to call for an amendment.

As for the whole of Issue 1, clearly it incorporates separate issues that are unrelated. Each one should be dealt with separately by the voters rather than lumped together as they are in Issue 1. In its current form it forces the voters to ignore what they dislike in order to vote for a factor they agree with. Furthermore, there is no wisdom whatsoever in setting an arbitrary value on anyone’s pain and suffering. Imagine the difference between loss of a limb and quadriplegia. Now imagine that the victim is a child.

We are not all the same, and seldom are the results of significant injuries all the same.

Finally, a constitutional amendment of any kind should be carefully worded and understandable. Issue 1 is neither. No doubt, the effort behind Issue 1 smacks of selfish interests attempting to operate through Big Brother principles. J.R. NASH Little Rock