Bathroom Bills

Should Arkansas, Texas regulate who uses public facilities?

Legislators in both Arkansas and Texas are considering so-called “bathroom bills.” If passed and signed into law, the bills would require individuals to use public restroom facilities and locker rooms designated for the gender that appears on their birth certificates.

Proponents say the move is needed to protect children from harm. Foes say it is blatant discrimination against transgender individuals.

We want to know what you think. Do you support a law regulating bathrooms use according to birth gender? Or do you oppose the idea?

Send your response (50 words maximum) to opinion@texarkanagazette.com by Wednesday, March 22. You can also mail your response to the Texarkana Gazette Friday Poll, at P.O. Box 621, Texarkana, TX 75504. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in next Friday’s paper. Last Week: Convention of States

Our question last week was about the Texas Legislature passing a resolution calling for a Convention of the States to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Do you support a Convention of the States? Or do you oppose the idea?

Please understand that any proposed amendment must be ratified by the state house and senate of 38 States in order to be adopted. No crazy amendment to our Constitution will be ratified by 38 states unless it enjoys broad support across the land. We cannot count on the people in Washington to fire themselves with term limits or even balance the budget. We must do it with a Convention of the States.—D.J., Simms, Texas

The wording of Article Five concerning a Constitutional Convention is so vague as to invite abuse. Add to this the sinful nature of Mankind, in love with power, and a Con-Con becomes a terrible idea.—M.V.W., Texarkana, Texas

The framers of our constitution were clear-headed, intelligent visionaries inspired by God. I don’t think anyone in Washington is that now. —J.M., Atlanta, Texas

Our Constitution does not need to be changed! It needs to be supported and defended as I took an oath to do when I accepted a Commission in the Air Force. Do you think conventioneers could improve on the words of our founding fathers? Enforce the Constitution, don’t destroy it!—M.R.B., Texarkana, Texas

We have become “slaves” to a dysfunctional government. A Convention of States is overdue. Our lunatic Congress and Senate are incompetent. Where is the authority for the states to convene and act, the constitution, maybe? Pump out the septic tank. “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Thomas Jefferson—G.M., Texarkana, Ark.

I oppose, however I support the notion to limit the terms of all lawmakers in D.C. Maybe three terms and that’s it.— B.J., Texarkana, Texas

The argument I have for a Convention of States is pretty simple, no politician will pass an amendment to the Constitution that limits their terms. It has to be done with a Convention of States. For this purpose alone we need the Convention of States. Mark Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” is a must read.— B.C., Texarkana, Texas

The states surrendered their power with the passing of the 17th Amendment. Thereby, reducing the sovereign powers they held in lieu of the federal government. Article 5 is in the Constitution for such a situation. Convention of States is the answer to rein in the federal government’s overreach.—D.K.D., Knoxville, Tenn.

An Article V convention of states is urgently needed. The Founders included

this clause in Article V for precisely the situation we find ourselves today: the federal government, including Congress, is overreaching, unbalanced, and dysfunctional, and has neither the desire nor the ability to fix the problem.—S.C., Dallas, Texas

A Convention of States doesn’t “monkey around with the entire document”. It is an alternate method, per Article V which gives the states a way to propose amendments which still have to be ratified by 38 states. The states are meant to give power to the feds, not the opposite.—L.A., Millerton, N.Y.

COS is negotiating three items only. Term limits on the House/Senate and the Supreme Court, and a balanced budget. The Convention can discuss these items only. If they go off of the agenda then the legislators from each of the states can call them back. Let’s do it.—J.D., Fredericksburg, Va.

In 1791 there was no telephone, Internet, etc. A convention was about the only way to get together to debate an amendment. It is too bad that they did not simply write Article Five to say “The several states shall hold a convention of states each two years to propose possible amendments to this Constitution.”—W.T., El Paso, Texas

A Convention of States under Article 5 is called to propose amendments to the Constitution, not rewrite it. To stand a chance of being ratified by 38 states each amendment will need to be well-worded and address a single issue. The convention might produce several amendments, but each would be subject to its own ratification. I believe the time has come that a majority of citizens want to see fiscal responsibility and a substantial reduction in the size and reach of the many agencies and their regulations.—P.R., Upper Track, W.V.

Any amendments that might be passed by a Convention of States, must each receive individual ratification by 38 states before they become part of our Constitution. The COS project proposes to discuss, fiscal restraint, limiting the power and jurisdiction, and term limits for congress and other officers.—E.C., Orlando, Fla. From www.facebook.com/ TexarkanaGazette

First of all, Convention of the States is in the Constitution for this very reason. Yes, absolutely support it. If you do your research, anything done through the Convention of the States has to be ratified by 38 states. The founders allowed for 2 different ways to pass amendments, and this way was for the very reason if the federal government go to be too big.

I strongly support a term limit constitutional amendment. Public service was never intended to be a lifelong career. I think term limits would do a lot to cut down on corruption. An amendment to the Constitution is necessary to achieve this because Congress will not do it themselves.

I absolutely support a Convention of the States! It’s not one state changing the Constitution. It takes a majority of states to pass anything forward. Our two party system is broken. We need real reform in many areas of our government, but it’s not going to happen with the two parties we have now. A Convention of the States just might save this country.

Only support it for term limits.

We need COS to set term limits. Lobbyists and career politicians are ruining this country.

I am totally against, someone will try to slip something by that is totally unrelated.