Be The Change Writes Third Response to the Firestone Explosion

Dear Governor Hickenlooper:

Following the Firestone tragedy in which two young men were killed, a young son was left without a father, and his mother, the wife of one of the men, was seriously injured, we asked that you establish an independent committee to investigate the causes of that gas explosion and determine the risks of recurrence.

We made that request in two letters dated May 2 and 3, 2017.  They are attached for your reacquaintance.  We have had no reply.  Indeed, it appears you are still committed to allowing the industry to investigate and judge its own accident.

In this nation, industrial accidents are investigated by independent government entities to determine their cause and any corrective action needed to protect the public.  Negligence is not ruled out as a contributing factor until all the facts are known.  That approach needs to be adopted in this case.  You must abandon your hands off, “business friendly” regulatory approach.  The facts demand it.

Indeed, we question the adequacy of Anadarko Petroleum closing down 3000 vertical wells, most of which are low producing wells, since the shut downs result in only a 3 percent loss in overall oil and gas production for the company.  This “abundance of caution,” as they term it, smacks a little of the wolf in granny’s clothes.  They would have us believe that the problem is with old vertical wells, when in fact, the new, industrial-size, horizontal wells, 10 to 40 wells on a pad, pose an even greater threat to public safety, in our estimation.  Size matters, and all wells grow old and eventually leak, as even the industry admits.  In our opinion, all operations, old and new, and not just pipelines from old wells, need to be independently evaluated.  The issues are gas leakage, pipeline alignment and maintenance, and well proximity to humans.  All must be independently evaluated for the risks they pose to the public, especially those living close to the industry’s infrastructure, i.e., wells, pipelines, and storage facilities. Continue reading

Phil Doe summarizes Colorado’s latest legislative session as ‘nothing of value’

The Overwhelming Tawdriness of Government in Colorado

After 5 months of doing nothing of value, although spending millions in the furtherance thereof, the Colorado legislature closed up shop last month.  The people should demand a refund for nonperformance, but instead they will have to ante up more money to pay legislators and other top state and county officials.  The wages of nothingness are great.  In 2019 the legislature will award itself a 41 percent pay increase; the governor a 39 percent increase.

Pay increases for top-of-the-pyramid public servants had already been realized in Weld County, the epicenter for the fracking wars in Colorado.  There, the county commissioners received a 37 percent increase in pay to $120,000, plus retirement and health benefits.  Later, as antidote to the red-faced disease, the salary was scaled back to $105,000, only a blushing increase of 17 percent.

The average salary of teachers in Weld is $37,000.

Continue reading

Be The Change Writes Second Response to the Firestone Explosion

Photo from One News Page


Subject: Second request for an independent investigation of the causes of the Firestone explosion and the risks of reoccurrence 

Dear Governor:

We appreciate that you are taking the risks associated with the Firestone explosion seriously.  And while we are loath to play the dog in the manger, we think your response as presented in the Denver Post has weaknesses borne of your need to respond to the public outcry in a timely manner.

We again request, as in our original letter of 2 days ago, an independent investigation.  We think the public’s interest can only be served in this way, with an independent investigative panel empowered to hold hearings and gather information free of any outside influences.

Government’s first and primary function, as you know, is to protect public health and safety. That responsibility cannot be shunted off to the oil and gas industry. Such a regulatory formulation, given the circumstances at hand, is unacceptable.  Indeed, in our opinion, oil and gas’s control of the playing field contributed to this disaster, and we are not convinced that their economic interests will allow them to be disinterested investigators.  In fact, the concept is laughable.  Think of Upton Sinclair’s expose of the meat packing industry in The Jungle as instructive.
Thus, our recommendations are as follows:

It seems highly unlikely that Anadarko, with its after-the-fact claim to be closing its lines out of an “abundance of caution,” can be relied upon to clean up what some observers believe is an Augean mess.  For instance, we do not understand why Anadarko would not have analyzed the reasons for production shortfall and taken corrective steps if gas production was below anticipated or historical levels when the Firestone well was reopened.  If any reasonable analysis were undertaken, wouldn’t they have discovered the open valve to the old line they somehow forgot(?) to close?

Our citizen experts think it was more likely a problem with the cement-on-steel seal–an integral part of every well construction that chronically fails over time and for which no solution exists.  How a leaky well seal, a commonplace, especially on older wells, and an open valve to an abandoned line may have intersected in creating the tragedy is unknown, but should be investigated thoroughly. This odd and suspicious coincidence, combined with the chronic well seal problem, should cause any reasonable person to ask how many wells are there out there that have closed off or abandoned lines, and how safe are the seals and valves at the wells that close off those old lines?  Indeed, how safe are the seals and valves at wells to working lines?  What is the life expectancy of well seals and valves? What are industry SOPs on inspection and replacement? We cannot and should not let the industry answer these questions absent independent public oversight.

There are other open questions as well, but this is front and center at the moment given what has been reported in the press. Corrosion of old lines also worries us.  What protections are in place to insure that old lines, thought to be steel, are still safe? And what is the life expectancy of the steel lines and the newer plastic lines?   And of course there is the overarching question of when is the state going to address the total lack of inspection of gathering lines and transport lines, of which there are many thousands of miles?  It shakes our confidence further when the COGCC’s Director Matt Lepore tells us they don’t have good information on the location, age, and disposition of oil and gas supply lines in the field.

I don’t think it is wild eyed to suspect either a cover up to keep wells working or something approaching criminal negligence.  This rush to final judgment without hearings in which technical experts can add to the fire department’s assessment is unseemly.  Moreover, Matt Lapore’s assurance another incident is unlikely to occur doesn’t carry weight.  He is a lawyer, not an expert, engineer, or scientist with deep technical knowledge.

The ringing question is still, what is the risk this incident exposed, what holes did this incident expose in the state’s regulatory framework, especially with regard to seal, valve, and pipeline inspection and safety, and what standards are used or should be used to assess risk?  The public in fracked cities and communities, from experience, have no confidence in the COGCC or Director Lepore.

Government has to take this lack of confidence seriously.   After all, government’s first constitutional duty, as we said at the outset, is to assure the public’s health and safety.  Until an independent risk assessment is made, and independent experts can review the information and the decision process, it will continue to look and smell like a quick burial of public concern, coinciding with the burial of the two young men killed tragically by an incident that government assures us is unlikely to reoccur.  We are not persuaded, and with good reason.

Finally, we welcome your understanding that there is a giant loophole in the state regulations regarding developers.  The oil and gas industry, without a request for variance, which can be granted, must observe setbacks of 500 feet from homes and 1000 feet from schools, hospitals, and some other high occupancy buildings.  Yet this standard is not applied to developers.  Forget for the moment, as the COGCC recognizes, there is no scientific evidence to support the present industry setbacks–they are simply cosmetic and in response to public alarm–how can the state look the other way in allowing setbacks of only a 150 feet for developers in some instances, and maybe none at all, in others? In fact, our intelligence is that some houses have been built over old abandoned wells and gathering lines.

Is the issue here public safety and the protection thereof, or is government trying to placate the developers at the same time it is playing a different placating game with the oil industry and yet another placating game with homeowners, city and county governments, and others sitting on top of various oil and gas infrastructure??  Your promise that the state will look at this loophole is not convincing.  If the 500 and 1000-foot setbacks are minimums for the oil industry, how can they be any different for the developers?  That loophole should be closed without delay if indeed it is the public’s health and safety we are interested in.

Thanks you for your attention, and we look forward to your reply,

Phillip Doe
Environmental Director
Be the Change

Be The Change Responds to the Firestone Explosion

Denver Post May 2, 2017


In an open letter to Governor Hickenlooper, Be The Change Environmental Director, Phil Doe, responds to the house explosion that occured in Firestone on April 17th. Below is the complete text of the letter.


Dear Governor:

Almost two weeks ago two young men were killed and a woman, the new wife of one of the men, was critically injured when the couple’s home exploded in Firestone, Colorado.  Eight days later Anadarko shut 3000 wells in the general vicinity of the destroyed home. Late last week, in the wake of the Firestone disaster, Great Western Oil and Gas shut down 61 of its wells with product pipelines that are within 250 feet of occupied buildings.

Our chief concern with the Firestone tragedy is that the state will cover up, disguise, or sanitize the findings, that it will not be honest with the people, that it will actively work to shelter the industry.  Neither the Firestone fire department, with its limited technical resources, nor the state oil and gas commission should be in charge of this critical investigation.  Thus, we ask that you call for an independent investigation by a disinterested scientific body, beholding to neither local nor state government. Dwindling public trust demands swift and strong state action.

This request is not overkill.  In 2013, after the Poudre Valley flood, the state, with little to no independent information of its own, rubber stamped the industry’s declaration that despite numerous oil and gas facilities being flooded, with some being carried down river, the event resulted in minimal damage, with little risk to the public’s health or safety. Similarly, the state and its chief medical officer, Dr. Larry Wolk, have discounted two studies from the Colorado School of Public Health which document significant increases in leukemia and birth defects among individuals living near oil and gas wells.

We do not want these intemperate denials cavalierly repeated.  Fugitive gas leakage into homes and businesses constitutes a dangerous and apparently imminent threat to the public’s health and safety.  Blind deference to industry must cease.  Colorado must accept its constitutional obligation to, first, protect public health and safety.  Only an independent investigation will give the public confidence its interests are being protected.


Phillip T. Doe
Environmental Director, Be the Change

Phil Doe responds to pro-fracking editorial

The following letter, written by Phil Doe, is a rebuttal to Peter Moore’s guest editorial, Maintain Colorado’s reasoned approach to developing energy resources


In fiction there is a thing called the unreliable narrator because what he relates is fantastical and lacks substantiation. Peter Moore is one of those unreliable narrators.


Colorado does not have the strongest fracking rules in the nation. The strongest rules are those that ban the practice. New York is but one of those states. Indeed, whole nations have banned the practice out of public health concerns


Moore assures us it is only tree dwelling Yahoo environmentalists who have opposed the oil industry’s rule of the state. Actually, it is the families threatened by oil wells in their backyard and schoolyards who form the backbone of the resistance.


Moore claims voter approval of industry sponsored Amendment 71, which denies the public the right of majority rule on constitutional issues, settles the matter. He fails to mention that the industry spent over $27 million in a extended propaganda campaign to achieve this result.


He also fails to mention that as a corporate lawyer he founded Vital for Colorado, an oil and gas front group, and that Vital contributed $655,000 to Amendment 71 funding.


Phillip Doe

Environmental Director

Be the Change USA

Oregon-based LNG Export Project fosters fracking in Colorado

Southern Oregon is under attack. The natural gas industry is proposing the Jordan Cove LNG Export Project and the Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline {JCPC} which will be 100% dependent on fracked gas from both the Canadian and U.S. Rockies, especially  Colorado.

Veresen, Inc., a Canada based corporation proposed to build an LNG export terminal at the Port of Coos Bay, Oregon and an accompanying 36-inch 230+ mile high pressured natural gas pipeline across Southern Oregon. The pipeline will traverse some of the most pristine lands in the United States, cross more than 400 water bodies, and cause the loss of hundreds of acres of old-growth forests and impact numerous endangered species on land, in our rivers and our coastal waters. The company has threatened private landowners with eminent domain to take their properties; I am one of those landowners. In addition to the terminal and pipeline, the project requires the construction of a power plant [South Dunes Power Plant] that will become the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in the State of Oregon and tie local rural communities to a fossil fuel economy for decades to come.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission denied JCPC in March of 2016. Project owner Veresen, Inc., a Canada based corporation has filed an appeal requesting that FERC reconsider its decision. FERC’s last action was a tolling order, which is a decision to re-examine it’s previous rejection. To date FERC has taken no action. When they do, we hope they deny the project, but we need Coloradan’s help to ensure this happens.

Currently the only voices being heard in Colorado are those in favor of the project. In recent months Veresen has spent considerable time and energy soliciting Colorado local governments and industry entities to contact and lobby FERC in support of the project. Many Colorado government entities and businesses have responded; Garfield County Commissioners letter is the most recent. Veresen has been successful in soliciting an outpouring of letters in support of fracked Colorado gas for the Pacific Connector and Jordan Cove projects.

Oregonians have a very active and organized opposition group working hard each day to prevent this project from being built and do their best to thwart the efforts of Colorado’s pro-fracking interests. We need your help and your voices to join with us in opposition. I’m asking  your organization and its members to submit letters to FERC opposing the Jordan Cove and Pacific Connector projects.  FERC must be aware there is strong opposition in Colorado to the proliferation of natural gas for these Oregon projects. If there is no pipeline or export terminal, the demand for Colorado’s resources will decrease, in particular water and its growing use in the fracking industry.

Letters should be addressed to:

Chairman Norman C. Bay,
Commissioners LaFleur, Clark and Honorable
c/o Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street NE, Room 1A
Washington, DC 20426

Re: Docket Nos. 13-492-000; 13-483-000


Please help us.

In solidarity,

Stacey McLaughin
Myrtle Creek, Oregon


Amendment 71 – Raise The Bar raises millions from Oil and Gas

Raise the Bar is the Issues Committee supporting Amendment 71. Here are the latest contributions and expenditures from that organization*:


Contributions to Raise the Bar
PCEEEI gave an additional $1,000,000 to Raise the Bar – for a total of $2,000,000

Total contributions so far: $4,158,838.00


Largest contributors

$3,123,400.00 Oil and Gas
$151,250.00 big ag
$150,000.00 gaming
$130,000.00 real estate
$100,000.00 hotel and hospitality
$45,000.00 for profit healthcare
$44,500.00 banking/financial

$3,744,150.00 Total of largest contributors


Total expenditures to date: $2,991,023.47


Largest expenditures

$1,675,760.00 Advertising/media

$2,590,935.81 Total of largest expenditures

*All contributions and expenditures reported above were obtained from the Colorado Secretary of State web site.

Be The Change releases Fact Sheet in opposition to Amendment 71

Amendment 71: the corporately-financed initiative designed to eliminate the citizen’s right to initiative. 

Probably the most important historical fact we should recognize when discussing Amendment 71, dubbed Raise the Bar by its corporate sponsors, is that the people’s right to the initiative, or citizen driven legislation, was added to our constitution by an overwhelming vote of the people in 1910, 76 percent voting in favor.  This was the era of trusts and corporate monopoly.

Its purpose was to provide citizens with a powerful constitutional right to deal directly with an unresponsive or corrupt government.  The courts have said it gave the people the first right to legislate, a right superior even to the legislatures.  Understandably, it has never been popular with the ruling class, no matter the time frame.

Many think 2016 is 1910 revisited, with corporate control at every level of government an ugly reality.  The people’s right to initiative is a troublesome impediment to corporate control.

Indeed, the millions of dollars in corporate money funding 71 suggest how important the 1 percent think elimination of our right to the initiative is.  They know from experience they can buy the government, but the people are another matter. They can be unruly. They can demand reform.  They can even initiate it, but only if they have the right of initiative.


  1. Half-truths and outright lies by the corporate interests funding Amendment 71

Assertion:  The initiative process in Colorado is too easy.

Reply:  This is the biggest of the many whoppers being circulated by the ruling elite who simply don’t like the people having a direct say in government and law making via the initiative process.

Fact:  The state constitution has been amended 48 times by citizen initiative in the 116 years since the initiative was added to the constitution in 1910.  On average, this comes to less than one amendment every two years.  By comparison, the legislature has amended the constitution, following the approving vote of the people, 83 times.

In 2014, no constitutional initiatives were passed in Colorado.  Indeed, though 145 initiatives were filed with the state, only 4 got the requisite signatures to get on the ballot, but none were approved by the people. Easy it is not.

By comparison, the legislature, drafts over 600 bills in each legislative session, with about half becoming law.  Generally speaking, the initiative is available to the people as a remedy, only every other year, the even numbered election years.

More than one commentator has said that when a large number of initiatives are introduced in any election year, it is primarily an indication of discontent with the political system and its leaders.  If there were a national initiative in this election season, their numbers would undoubtedly be in thousands.


  1. We’re wrecking the constitution 

Assertion:  The Colorado Constitution is being destroyed by the “mob’s” impulses to change it on a whim.

Reply: As demonstrated above, the legislature has asked for more changes in the constitution than have the people, almost 2 to1.  But in neither case should this be a cause for alarm.  We should treat our constitution as a living document, one that must be modified to reflect the needs of the people as those needs develop.  We should not treat it as a religious relic that only the high priests of government have access too.


  1. We need to make it harder to keep the riff raff out 

Assertion:  We have the easiest initiative process of any state.

Reply: not true, another lie.  Our signature requirements are somewhat lower than many states, but the length of time we are given to get those signatures is among the shortest.  Statutorily, we are given 6 months to get the requisite signatures, presently about 120,000 registered voters.  This number includes a 20 percent surplus as a fail safe against official challenges.  Additionally, single-subject challenges, submitted by opponents to the state supreme court, can effectively become a pocket veto reducing the signature gathering time to as little as 90 days to collect 120,000 signatures.

By comparison, some states have greater signature requirements, but the length of time given to record those signatures can be up to two years.  If we were to use the ratio of signatures required to the time allotted to gather those signatures, Colorado’s requirement would be among the most stringent, punitive even.

A 2% approval on Amendment 71–a requirement in each of the state’s 35 senatorial districts before an initiative could even get on the ballot–is a poison pill for citizens with limited resources.  Frankly, 71 is nothing more than a corporately-financed initiative designed to eliminate the people’s right to initiative. 


  1. Motive for making it harder

Assertion: the initiative process must be made harder.

Reply: This assertion is perhaps revelatory as to motive. Never have the people been asked by 71’s proponents how the initiative process might be made better, more efficacious, only how can it be made harder?  By that they mean harder to use.

That it is already very hard is borne out by the fact that in 2014 no initiatives were passed in Colorado and only 2 nationally.  The national corporate effort to undermine the initiative process by making it harder in each of the 24 states with the rights of initiative is bearing fruit for the 1 percent.


  1. The initiative process is overused

Assertion:  the initiative process is ruining the constitution.

Reply: many of the most important reforms in state government have come by means of the initiative.  Among them are the GOCO funds for protecting public lands; term limits; the sunshine laws that open up government meetings and documents to public oversight; home rule; the right of recall.  (Admittedly, home rule and the sunshine laws have taken a beating from the legislature and the courts.)

Most of these could not have come from the legislature where faction and pettiness have become the rule.  With the exception of two initiatives dealing with gay rights, which have been overturned by the courts, the following are all the constitutional initiatives approved in the past 30 years, 1986 to 2016, with the rate of approval by the voters.

  • The decriminalization of recreational marijuana use (2012) 55%
  • Colorado delegation to support U.S. constitutional amendment to limit campaign spending and contributions (2012) 74%
  • Increased gaming allowed, with most new tax revenues going to local junior colleges (2008) 58%
  • Prohibition against sole source contractors making political party contributions (2008) 51%
  • Limits on gifts to elected officials, Standards of Conduct (2006) 62%
  • Increased minimum wage (2006) 53%
  • Tobacco tax increase, revenues to support health care (2004) 61%
  • Campaign finance reform (2002) 66%
  • Medical use of marijuana (2000) 53%
  • Increase school funding, tied to the rate of inflation (2000)52%
  • Voluntary Congressional term limits (1998) 50%
  • Strengthen trust responsibilities on state land (1996) 51%
  • Banning certain methods of trapping and poisoning for the recreational            taking of wildlife (1996) 52%
  • Tax limitations-voting (TABOR 1992) 53%
  • Lottery revenues for parks, open space (GOCO 1992) 58%
  • Term Limits (1990) 70%
  • English as the official language (1988) 64%

There is a clunker on this list, the people are not always right, they can be flat out ugly and spiteful, but still there are none on the list as dreadful and damning as the federal Dred Scott decision.  Not even close.

Generally, what we see are citizen attempts to foster good government, recognize and deal with existing realities (marijuana use), and find public funds to support public schools and the environment.  Some might even assert most would not have been necessary had the legislature done its job.

You will notice also that roughly half of the initiatives passed in the past 30 years would not meet the super majority requirement of 55 percent approval rate contained in 71 and therefore would not be the law of the state.

It is probably also worth mentioning that the corporate proponents of 71 will not have to meet the 55 percent requirement they want to set for the rest of us either.


  1. Outside money is taking over the state

Assertion: the constitution is becoming the dumping ground for outside interest legislation.

Reply:  Amendment 71 is supported and funded by the political elite.  This includes the governor. He has openly condemned outside money being used to advance special interest legislation via the initiative. This is hypocrisy at its most blatant, for 71 is being financed largely by outside corporations, oil and gas primarily, who do not like the people trying to protect their health and property interests, to say nothing of their rights as sovereigns, for as set out in our state constitution:

“All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. from whom all government of right derives its powers.”

The governor is apparently unfamiliar with the Preamble, and the corporate interests behind 71 would obviously like to muzzle forever the Preamble’s lofty language.

The extent outside corporate money is propping up Raise the Bar is illustrated in the latest reporting to the Secretary of State.  It shows that on 9/08/2016, Raise the Bar received $1 million dollars from Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence.  PCEEEI is the creation of the oil industry.  Its biggest contributors are Anadarko and Noble energy.  They have each given $5 million and both are headquartered in Texas.  The $1 million received from PCEEEI in early September is roughly equal to all other contributions up to that time.  Expect more, much more.

PCEEEI reportedly spent about $13 million in outside corporate money to help defeat two citizen led anti-fracking initiatives this past year, but, despite the boat loads of money thrown at defeating them, it was only by the skin of their teeth.  Preliminary polling shows that they would have passed had they made the ballot.

Now you start to see the urgency of the corporate actions to get 71 passed.

So as it turns out, the political elite we see doing paid TV adds bemoaning the takeover of the state initiative process by outside interests are right.  Their friends and benefactors are taking over the state, and with their help.


  1. The Initiative Process Unfair to Rural Colorado

Assertion:  Rural folks aren’t being treated equally

Reply:  one person, one vote is a time honored and foundational principle of democracy.  Weighing votes by geographic location has never been considered in a statewide election and shouldn’t be now.  Try and apply 71’s requirement of geographic approval in each of the state’s 35 senatorial districts to a state wide election, say governor.  The governor would first have to get 2 percent approval of the registered voters in each district before he could even get on the ballot; thus creating a double election requirement, a real gotcha.  Rural preference for the initiative tally has been tried in Nebraska and ruled unconstitutional for obvious reasons.

Oh, and should we mention that the proponents could not even assure anyone that they got approval of 2 percent of the voters in each of the districts as they would require of the rest of us?.  This requirement would however make it much easier to target an initiative that wealthy interests did not like. All they need do is throw money at a couple of districts to make sure there wasn’t 2 percent approval.  And perhaps that’s its real purpose.


  1. Statutory Initiative should be used instead of Constitutional

Assertion: the statutory initiative needs to be used more.

Reply, this may be the only statement from the corporate backers of 71 with any factual basis.  It should and would be used more often by the people if they did not face the threat of the statute being overturned the next year by the legislature.  If the legislature were to guarantee a statutory initiative a life of at least 5 years without repeal or meddling then it might be used more.  If the signature requirements were simultaneously lowered this too might encourage statutory initiatives.  But as long as the requirements are what they are today, the people will take the constitutional route.  The effort and costs are just too great to do otherwise.



Twice in the past the state legislature has attempted to meddle with the people’s right to the initiative.  Twice the U.S. Supreme Court has told them, in the strongest terms, hands off; for the initiative is a fundamental constitutional right that only the people can change.

How ironic it is that a consortium of corporates with politicians from both parties in tow, are trying to use the right of initiative to take that right away from the people. A sincere public conversation is needed on how to make the initiative process more useful for everyone, for it has become extremely difficult to use, with bureaucratic roadblocks numerous and punitive by design.  Only the wealthy can negotiate its shoals with any certainty.

Vote no on 71 and demand a public conversation on how to make the initiative more useful and still provide the public with a needed control on unresponsive or corrupt government.

If 71 passes the public will be locked out, with the corporations and their stooges in government holding the only key

Response to the Denver Post’s op-ed of August 20, The need to raise the Bar for amending Colorado’s constitution

It’s never a good idea to limit the people’s rights in a democracy, for as Tom Paine remarked correctly, “The strength of government and the happiness of the governed” is sustained only when the common people have freedom to “mutually and naturally support each other.”


One of the first instruments of mutual, democratic support in Colorado is the initiative, or the right of the citizens to write law.  But this essential right is threatened by a proposal from rich and powerful interests who would suppress it with proposed constitutional amendment 71, called Raising the Bar.  They are fast about the business of trying to make a case for radical change where none exists.   They claim that we-the-people have gone mad and are destroying their constitution by adding new amendments to it, willy-nilly.  As a result the state constitution isn’t as lovely as it could be if it were treated as a religious relic.

Continue reading