Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

t1_iupapn8 wrote

> The Alabama Constitution of 1901 is currently 420,000 words. The new Constitution would shrink slightly to 373,274 words, but that is three times more words than the next-longest state constitution - Texas, according to an analysis from the PARCA.

Damn. Who’s actually read that?

312

t1_iupb8ap wrote

“The Public Affairs Research Council of Alabama says the size makes it the longest such document in the world.”

Alabama of all states.

229

t1_iuqqgv9 wrote

Maybe it’s written like this:

> Well, now, murder, okay? Now, murder, well, that just ain’t right. Now, we understand that sometimes, well, sometimes a body gonna make a body angry or upset or whatnot, but killin’ a body? Just because he run over your dog or whatever he done? We don’t allow no murderin’ here in Alabama.

218

t1_iur9ege wrote

The actual reason is because a shocking amount of state business must be conducted via constitutional amendments. One example is an amendment that controls the wages of specific judges. Shit that should have been laws, or even just some sort of policy.

This was done with the specific intent of enshrining white power in Alabama's government. It gives all of the power to rich white men in the legislature. That makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the majority-black regions to exercise any kind of local power.

38

t1_iute878 wrote

>Well, now, murder, okay?

Alabama supreme court declares murder legal. Majority opinion: TLDR.

2

t1_iurfqrm wrote

[removed]

8

t1_ius6ioy wrote

From Wikipedia:

“At about 145,000 words, it is the second-longest active constitution—after the Constitution of Alabama—in the world.”

13

t1_iuubjkx wrote

Personally, I'm surprised anyone in Alabama can write more than a paragraph or two.

1

t1_iupg5hx wrote

[deleted]

151

t1_iuphe1l wrote

> What on Earth makes their constitution so long?

Alabama's legislative process is... special. They don't have a regular old code of laws like basically any other sovereign entity on the planet. Rather, every single act of government in the state of Alabama, from statewide tax codes to your local city council renaming a school, comes in the form of a constitutional amendment.

The "fun" part about this whole setup is that the reason they organized their state government this way was because right around the turn of the 20th century, the KKK types who dominated the state government got really upset that city governments were undermining Jim Crow state policies with local ordinances, so they abolished all non-Constitutional legal code to consolidate 100% of political power in the state government. Specifically so they could force people to be more racist.

Edit: I did some more reading after I woke up this morning. The legislative process is not quite as bad as I originally said. Statewide laws can indeed be regular bills like other states have. It's every level below that whose governance that must be explicitly authorized by Constitutional amendment. Though since most issues of day-to-day life are matters of local governance, in practice this means that an astronomical amount of Alabama government goes through amendments.

The racism thing is 100% true though. The delegates who originally wrote the Alabama constitution explicitly said their goal was to enshrine white supremacy in the state constitution.

219

t1_iuplw0o wrote

In America, 80% of the time when you ask "why is this the way things are" the answer is racism.

The other 20% is corporate exploitation.

121

t1_iupoetr wrote

The other 40% is poor education

50

t1_iupugli wrote

And the other 60% is also poor math education. Smh.

22

t1_iur6qr7 wrote

This formula is complicated by the fact that the owner class uses racism as a marketing campaign to sell corporate exploitation.

4

t1_iupk0hg wrote

Lived here most of my life and just learned the "why".

71

t1_iuqxqau wrote

It’s ‘Bama, the answer to the question "why?" is always either "to rub the nose of those Northern carpetbaggers" or "listen, it’s necessary to make sure… certain segments don’t get uppity or immoral." Sometimes both.

30

t1_iuqyhfy wrote

The third option being so we can let corporations destroy the environment.

8

t1_iur11gs wrote

In 1901 they didn't care about the environment but they did care about something else.

7

t1_iuq4y2t wrote

clearly you never took the time to read your constitution. by time, probably a long long time

9

t1_iuqwwet wrote

I keep moving out of state to start life somewhere else only to move back. It's odd how much the rest of the country is similar to Alabama.

1

t1_iur3ow7 wrote

It’s weird right? I saw more rebel flags in West Virginia than I ever had in Alabama.

7

t1_iurdfjq wrote

I've been to many states, but I live in Alabama and always have. This place has so many rebel flags. What parts have you lived in? They are all over the place in the areas I've been. Definitely more than in any other state I've been to.

Granted, when traveling to other states I tend to stay on highways so I likely don't see nearly as much backwoods as I do around here.

6

t1_iurf3mq wrote

Down on the coast in bama. But, I was working in rural areas in WV. I also had never seen poverty quite like I did in WV.

6

t1_iurfdul wrote

See, that's the way I feel about Alabama. When going through really backwoodsy places in bama, I always think "I've never seen poverty like this anywhere else."

So it seems like it's usually the poor areas with the rebel flags, regardless of what the state is.

6

t1_iur40ri wrote

People keep trying to appropriate our culture. I will say my thick choctaw county accent really made dating easy when I was in oregon.

2

t1_iuqzce2 wrote

Try Vermont or Oregon next - Former Alabamian

4

t1_iuqzh9p wrote

I just moved back from cave junction. Most of Oregon was beautiful but very red. Imagine my suprise at all the rebel flags I saw in the state of Jefferson.

2

t1_iur11pc wrote

Ah I lived in Bend.

4

t1_iur17ta wrote

I do miss Oregon. Such a beautiful place. I also met a beautiful woman there. But I don't have either now. Maybe soon I can go back.

2

t1_iur6u7x wrote

Or try Burlington, VT next. It’s a gem.

4

t1_iur75ea wrote

I just went and visit a friend in coastal Maine. had a very familiar conversation with a guy about blue grass and how he feels about minorities while there. I think my next move is gonna be out of the country. I wanna go somewhere that doesn't speak the damr language as me.

2

t1_iupng1p wrote

I, personally, don't need a source for this because it sounds exactly like something people who lived in Alabama before 1990 would do, but it'd be nice if you had one.

14

t1_iupphay wrote

Before 1990? Alabama is as much of a racist shithole today as it was back then. The state that rejected progress. Over and over and over again.

2

t1_iupsm1o wrote

Well, there was that time a few years where they decided NOT to elect a pedophile to Senate. I’ll give them that much.

15

t1_iur3hip wrote

Gonna be honest, this is the exception that proves the rule. If it's the beginning of a trend, then count me happily surprised, but i very much doubt that'll happen.

1

t1_iupslqc wrote

This gets me. We try to improve things and get excoriated for it. We leave things alone and get excoriated again. What do you want us to do? We are trying to modernize our Constitution. What is it to you? Why do you care?

Why don't you go to the Secretary of State website and read up on what the changes are, if you actually care. Oh , never mind you might have to address your own prejudices. Don't do it.

3

t1_iupxndi wrote

Please, what have we tried to improve? Abortion is illegal, being trans is illegal, Medicare expansion was denied, we're 50th in education (let's not kid ourselves with the new rating after covid isolation), gerrymandering, we're the fattest, and we voted for trump and a football coach.

I could go on. I was born and raised here, and the only thing that's changed is the level of apathy we have for politics because the right wing majority isn't going anywhere so nothing will ever change.

This whole constitutional modernization is a bread crumb we're tossing to the gerrymandered black communities we're fucking over.

16

t1_iurar25 wrote

We spent a decade in the late 90s and early 00s fighting for a new constitution. I dunno if "overthrowing the racist government" counts as trying in your book. It sure as shit does in mine.

2

t1_iuq9jnh wrote

What improvement? That state is as backward as it's ever been. The racism is as shocking as it was 100 years ago. It's still full on Jim Crow, anti-progress which is just how they like it down there.

3

t1_iur0rzx wrote

Hey, thought I should clarify something for you. The 19th century is 1800's and the 20th century is 1900s. So we're talking 1800-1900 for the "turn of the 20th century", not Y2K. Thought you should know.

1

t1_ius5q7h wrote

It's really really dumb. Pretty much every election, I have ballot issues for counties that are on the other end of the state from me.

1

t1_iuqv8xe wrote

Florida is similar. We're always amending our constitution instead of passing laws and regulations.

And usually it's "the people" adding amendments but the the people (our legislature) that'll pass laws.

0

t1_iuq3ad7 wrote

AL's seems obscene in length, but I think most state constitutions are a bit on the long side.

https://www.ncsl.org/blog/2017/11/17/your-states-constitution-the-peoples-document.aspx

Yeah, Alabama is an outlier. TX at #2 is 88k lines. Article is a bit old, but doubt the ratio has changed much.

I guess it does make sense. The federal one is pretty light because they left most of the power to the states. The states would need to get more into the weeds in theory and they are easier to amend. Odd thinking about it though since when we talk about the constitution it is usually in reference to the nice tiny federal one.

Have to confess, I have not read my current state's one. US Constitution plenty of times, have a copy on my desk in fact (no particular reason, just haven't put it back), but the founding documents of our states are just as important.

−2

t1_iupqv12 wrote

420,000 words is roughly the same length as an epic fantasy novel. 900-1000 pages. Imagine having to read all that in legalese. Old legalese.

8

OP t1_iuri24p wrote

And these people claim to hate big government.

They only hate it when it benefits people who aren't white males.

6

t1_iurcrn3 wrote

The smaller word count is probably just from removing all instances of the N word.

1

t1_iup7yji wrote

Conservatives any time changing the US Constitution is mentioned: The original words of the founding fathers are sacred! They can’t be touched!

Alabama conservatives: let’s rewrite this bad boy 978 times

135

t1_iupi4e7 wrote

You haven’t been paying attention. Conservatives want to another constitutional convention so they can rewrite the constitution and strip us of our rights once and for all

32

t1_iupylw3 wrote

Except that won't work either because states still need to ratify the changes.

You would need 38 states to ratify the changes. That's why pretty much no changes to the constitution happen.

3

t1_iusgweh wrote

There are currently 23 Republican trifectas in America. That isn't that far away from 38...

2

t1_iur5xz0 wrote

What's the point of being called a united America if the states can just do what ever the fuck they want??

1

t1_iupwxp4 wrote

[removed]

−4

t1_iupxvlu wrote

They don't need a constitutional convention. They are planning in plain sight to overthrow American democracy by violent force.

The Federalist almost says the F-word:

> Put bluntly, if conservatives want to save the country they are going to have to rebuild and in a sense re-found it, and that means getting used to the idea of wielding power, not despising it.

> The left will only stop when conservatives stop them, which means conservatives will have to discard outdated and irrelevant notions about “small government.” The government will have to become, in the hands of conservatives, an instrument of renewal in American life — and in some cases, a blunt instrument indeed.

> [W]ielding government power will mean a dramatic expansion of the criminal code.

> If all that sounds radical, fine. It need not, at this late hour, dissuade conservatives in the least. Radicalism is precisely the approach needed now because the necessary task is nothing less than radical and revolutionary.

> For now, there are only two paths open to conservatives. Either they awake from decades of slumber to reclaim and re-found what has been lost, or they will watch our civilization die. There is no third road.

7

t1_iupmp92 wrote

Ehhh state constitutions are a lil different, and I think that “originalism”, while bullshit, is more about not reinterpreting the constitution. Rewriting it is a clearly defined process and shit, ya know?

18

t1_iur9x9c wrote

I don't think many people who have actually read the U.S. Constitution want it changed. It's a concise, carefully-worded and well-thought-out document that gives the Federal Government the tools it needs to operate, without getting bogged down in details. Even in Liberal circles, the most I ever hear are calls for changes in term limits or the electoral process, which is more like tweaking the Constitution rather than changing it.

State Constitutions serve a different purpose, though, and are right to be more detailed, and also more flexible. As a general rule in government, the closer you are to individual people, the more precise you should be in law and policy. Something as distant as the US Constitution should be very broad and general, do you learn more with procedure than anything; something as close as a city ordinance is where you should find things like how to keep your yard, etc.

4

t1_iup8pix wrote

*If allowed by voters on the upcoming election day.

That’s a big if for Alabama.

45

OP t1_iup8vjh wrote

Right? I wonder if there's a Vegas line on this one...

8

t1_iupbfbq wrote

Well we already passed the Amendment to allow it to be revised. It would be silly if we didn't ratify it now.

That's all this vote is, a ratification of the changes which we already voted yes to change.

24

t1_iuph2c6 wrote

Wait. They have to ratify an amendment that was voted for by the people? Why would you need to? It’s like having to click “are you sure” when leaving a website.

4

t1_iupj8j3 wrote

All acts of the Alabama government come in the form of constitutional amendments. They literally do not have "laws" like any other state or country does. In order to hold a referendum, they have to pass an amendment to authorize the referendum.

If they want to so much as rename a post office in some sleepy little town, they have to pass a constitutional amendment.

11

t1_iupk5g0 wrote

That is ridiculous. My understanding is other states have them proposed and get enough signatures to have it appear on the ballot. If it passes, it passes.

2

t1_iupl1dz wrote

Well you see, about 120 years ago, city governments in Alabama were passing local ordinances to try to treat black people slightly less like subhumans. The very fine people of the Alabama state government decided they couldn't be letting that kind of thing go on, so they rewrote the constitution to centralize 100% of governmental authority directly into the constitution, as written by the state government. Ever since, absolutely no act of governance happens in the state without having the state legislature go through the full constitutional amendment process.

9

t1_iurem1u wrote

That sounds like Alabama. The state gets to decide on what the voters get to decide. Fuck this place.

2

t1_iutf8nu wrote

Surprised it made it this far without a poison pill being added to it. That’s how they always avoided this when I lived there. Add a property tax hike or something g of the sort.

1

t1_iupfdbx wrote

I am curious as to what the actual language in there looks like and why it took until now to change it

37

t1_iupgz4l wrote

Article 1: Jesus Article 2: Roll Tide Article 3: Probably something racist Article 4: Jesus and Roll Tide

51

t1_iupk45p wrote

I only recognize article two.

16

t1_iuyyvqf wrote

So how about that Tennessee game?

2

t1_iuyz3vk wrote

Man alabama played so bad I switched games and the refs on that game threw a flag on alabama.

2

t1_iupjjfr wrote

Every time this had been proposed previously there were extra changes that they tried to sneak through beyond just removing the racist verbage. Things like making it much easier to raise taxes or significant policy changes.

If they kept it to just removing racist leisure it would have passed decades ago.

Edit: From the article: "However, it does not make the policy changes that some reformers have sought"

So maybe this is a clean proposal for once. I'd be surprised if it is since this had normally been an excuse to paint opposition to tax increases and other policies as "racist"

24

t1_iupns7l wrote

Opposition to tax increases IS racist tho.

Increasing taxes disproportionately helps those at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder. People who are disproportionately black and brown.

−24

t1_iuppiqt wrote

Seriously, this BS again? You can call anything racist with this logic. Every policy will disproportionately affect some minority group in some way.

Previous attempts to remove racist language from the Alabama Constitution have actually been Trojan horses for handouts to teachers unions, abortion policy, and tax changes.

Each one of those is their own policy discussion with advantages, disadvantages, and trade offs. Including any of them in something sold as "removing racist language" is blatant dishonesty. You want to make those changes? Put them before the voters as what they really are and have the discussion about the policy. Trying to sneak your preferred policy, that you know you isn't supported by the voting public, undermines the democratic system of government.

10

t1_iups5vm wrote

>Trying to sneak your preferred policy, that you know you isn't supported by the voting public, undermines the democratic system of government.

The Republicans literally just used SCOTUS to undermine democracy and the will of the public this year. Like 2/3 of Americans support abortion rights and oppose overturning Roe...so you pretending like Democrats putting changes in the constitution up for a public vote is "undermining Democracy" is real fucking rich!

1

t1_iupthfl wrote

You're conflating federal and state levels of government.

Additionally, at the federal level, SCOTUS is supposed to be anti-majoritarian. Laws have to both 1) get enough support to be passed and 2) be constitutional. One of the primary roles of the SCOTUS is to check popular legislative and executive actions.

Even further, abortion never gained enough support to get any federal legislation passed, so it didn't even meet that hurdle. Even Ginsburg admitted that Roe's legal foundation was poorly reasoned. If it was actually as popular as you claim then it would have been easy to pass the legislation. But you 2/3s support is common of disinformation. 2/3s support abortion in some way, but it is normally presented as 2/3s support abortion in all instances. The reality is that most states will implement abortion restrictions in line with what the population actually supports: limits starting around 15-20 weeks. Which is pretty close to what most of Europe has had for decades.

2

t1_iuq3tuj wrote

> Even Ginsburg admitted that Roe's legal foundation was poorly reasoned.

I don't believe this is true.

I have only ever seen evidence that RBG thought the Roe was procedurally shaky and open to attack. I cannot find anywhere that Ginsburg disagreed with the logic behind Roe, just that she felt it was politically problematic. It doesn't seem that she disagreed that Right to Privacy encapsulates abortion rights, just that basing abortion rights on Gender Equality rather than Right to Privacy would have been stronger footing.

She wrote in her dissent in Gonzales v. Carhart that "legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman's autonomy to determine her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature."

As this article from June explains,

> On the right, Ginsburg has served an entirely different purpose: as a supposed vindicator of what the Supreme Court just did. Plenty have pointed to Ginsburg’s past criticisms of Roe to suggest that even she might have agreed with the present-day Supreme Court that the case was wrongly decided in the first place...

> There’s no question Ginsburg disagreed with how Roe was decided. But it’s hardly that simple.

> Indeed Ginsburg’s criticisms of Roe generally had to do with pragmatic and political concerns, rather than saying it was outright wrong. And far from wanting to leave this decision to the states, as Friday’s decision does, she repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right. She had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection rather than the right to privacy, the basis of Roe.

In a speech at the NYU School of Law in 1993, Ginsburg said, "The Roe decision might have been less of a storm center had it both homed in more precisely on the women's equality dimension of the issue..."

She also points out how Roe's singularity provided a pariah for anti-choice activists to rally against: "Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction." She repeated this sentiment two decades later in a 2013 speech at the University of Chicago Law School: "That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly."

Anyways, if RBG did say somewhere that she thought Roe was poorly reasoned, I'm all ears. But I have never stumbled upon that. This is what I have come across.

3

t1_iupuafu wrote

And RBG is a piece of shit too, so Idgaf what she said. Also, no it's not misinformation. Polling has REPEATEDLY SHOWN 2/3 support for abortion rights and support for maintaininh Roe v Wade.

−7

t1_iuprfs8 wrote

>You can call anything racist with this logic.

Yeah. Because most things ARE racist...our nation is built on a foundation of systemic racism.

Oh no, not funding for teachers, abortion policy and tax changes! How horrible that must be! 😂🤣. God conservatives are such fucking clowns.

−7

t1_iups8my wrote

In a democracy you have to build political support for your policies to get it passed. Regardless of the specific policies, trying to dishonestly end run the democratic process by lying to the electorate is antithetical to our system of government.

−1

t1_iupszsa wrote

You're a conservative, my guy....your party is still claiming Trump won the 2020 election....you don't get to complain about anyone else "lying to the electorate" or being dishonest. Especially on such flimsy grounds as "they proposed something for me to vote on and I didn't educate myself on what I was voting on....you're just a fuckin moron then...that's not on the politicians.

−3

t1_iupu3db wrote

The Alabama voters did educate themselves on the proposed changes, and they felt their opinion on actual policies was more important than symbolic changes to wording that had no legal impact.

I'm not sure why you think a federal election controversy is relevant to a single state's policy discussion. Do you understand the federalist organization of our country?

3

t1_iuwm60y wrote

Just because something systemically holds down an entire race of people doesn't make it racist. /s (This is a joke but also what a lot of people honestly believe it seems)

​

Also I want someone that knows more about CRT than myself to speak on this subject because it seems relevant.

1

t1_iuqbyti wrote

Assuming entire races of people cant compete with other races without handouts is what’s racist.

Once affirmative action goes away things will shift back to being based in merit, not on the color of someones skin.

−11

t1_iurm6x2 wrote

There are a lot of weird laws just sitting and we don't do much about them because they don't really matter.

Like the famous "you can't buy a duck on Sunday" or some weird shit.

2

t1_iupfogc wrote

Alabama, you say? I'm guessing they'll instead try to add a few more.

6

t1_iuq42n0 wrote

Genuinely curious: what’s an example of a racist passage? I read through the comments and couldn’t find any examples.

4

t1_iuqrdlm wrote

Section 102 of the 1901 Constitution says: “The legislature shall never pass any law to authorize or legalize any marriage between any white person and a negro, or descendant of a negro.”

12

t1_iutkjaq wrote

Are you for real? If so, what a big steaming pile of flagrant racism

1

t1_iup9iqc wrote

"Can"? Yes.

"Will"? Not a chance in hell.

3

t1_iupps6o wrote

You'd be surprised. Virtually every amendment passes, in my experience as a voter here the past decade. This one has the near (or maybe entirely) unanimous backing of the state legislature and I'd bet dollars to donuts it will pass, as will all 10 other amendments up for a vote...except for maybe #4, which seeks to prevent changes to how general elections are run for the 6 months preceding a general election. That one is a toss-up on my bingo card.

2

t1_iutfd8y wrote

As someone who lives in Alabama, I doubt it. Everyone one who’s recognizes what a shit state we live in plans to leave or already has. I know I am

3

t1_iuqap09 wrote

Is this about interracial marriage? It’s gonna be funny to see if this fails to pass. And not because of who you expect 😂

2

t1_iura5r2 wrote

.....but they won't. it's a feature, not a bug.

2

t1_iur4ygz wrote

The republicans of Alabama want to be able to take away the pronouns you use for yourself but keep the ones they use for you. Did I get that right?

1

t1_iurf4bu wrote

They want to use slurs, not pronouns.

3

t1_ius0nss wrote

Hey friend I’m on your side on this one. Technically they are pronouns and I’m just pointing out the obscene hypocrisy that is the right. We can’t refer to ourselves based on who we feel to be but the right will fight tooth and nail to keep the words they want to refer others by. It’s hate pure and simple.

1

t1_iurlghe wrote

> For example, voters in 2000 approved an amendment repealing an unenforceable interracial marriage ban — although 40% of voters voted against the repeal

Hooray! 60% of our state wants interracial marriage to be legal. Glass half full, guys!

1

t1_iurvmmf wrote

In Oregon there is an actual vote this year as to whether or not to remove slavery from the state constitution. What the…

1

t1_ivgj7r8 wrote

I saw that on the ballot when I voted. Was surprised, but really shouldn’t have; Oregon has a pretty racist history.

2

t1_iupdnhs wrote

But will they choose to? I'd be curious to see how the vote turns out.

0

t1_iupme3d wrote

While this is a seemingly good thing on the surface, I can't help but imagine the GOP will use the opportunity to enshrine awful shit in the new constitution.

0

t1_iuqadry wrote

That's exactly what they'll do. They've tried it before in Alabama not to mention they do it all the time at Federal level.

0

t1_iur2oiq wrote

What have "they" "enshrine[d] ... in the constitution" "at federal level"?

1

t1_iurro6v wrote

I was referring to Federal law not the US Constitution. The Alabama "constitution" is closer to Federal law than the US Constitution, hence the comparison. Check out the explanations by other posters in this thread.

0

t1_iupcpny wrote

Alabama voters generally like racist wording AFAIK… what am I missing here?

−2

t1_iupy5mw wrote

You’re missing the gerrymandering and voter suppression that happens in surprisingly black areas. You’re missing the disenfranchised voters you put the blame on.

−1

t1_iuq19c1 wrote

I’m not “missing” anything. What I’m saying is that currently in Alabama (including gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.) there is very little chance the state will amend the state constitution in a way that removes racist language.

1

t1_iurez7j wrote

You're right. Most people down here act like it's still 1800. Casual racism is alive and well.

2

t1_iuqbkrs wrote

I feel like any controversy is easily fixed by adding a "If the intrepretation of the re-worded version conflicts with the original, then the original intrepretation will take precedence" clause.

If the change is purely visual, and changing things for less offensive-sounding synonyms, then it's not really a change at all.

I think it's a silly use of man-power, but a harmless one which is (ideally) a purely visual change

−3