Writer encouraging ‘yes’ on Issue 1



Will passage of Issue 1:

•End majority rule? No.

•Shred our constitution? No.

•Take away our freedom? No.

The arguments being published opposing Issue 1 are typical liberal/progressive subterfuge. They hide their true purposes behind emotionally appealing rhetoric. Typically, they accuse the pro-Issue 1 side of the very matters of which they themselves are most guilty. They are truly the “special interests and corrupt politicians” of which they accuse those of us supporting the passage of Issue 1. They are wolves is sheep’s clothing. (Matthew 7:15)

The left contends that passage of State Issue 1 “Shreds Our Constitution,” “permanently undoing constitutional protections…to check politicians’ power at the ballot box.” Wrong. Politicians will still be elected to their offices by a simple majority of those voting. State laws will still be passed by the vote of a simple majority of state legislators. As further elucidated below, passage of State Issue 1 further enhances the protections of the rights of minorities rather than leaving them to the incursions of special interest groups.

Those opposing Issue 1 then argue that passage “takes away our freedoms.” What they mean is that it will make it more difficult for pro-abortion and pro-recreational drugs groups to pass legislation approving their own special interests which is the true underlying purpose in trying to get you, the public, to oppose Issue 1. Do not be fooled by these wolves and their fine sounding rhetoric.

In the end, their cleverly worded but deceptive argument asks, “should Ohio permanently abolish the basic constitutional right of majority rule?” First off, the left has spent years trying to convince us that we are a democracy as opposed to a constitutional republic. “What kind of government are you giving us Dr. Franklin? A republic, ma’am, if you can keep it!” A primary intent of a republic over a democracy is to protect the rights of the minority. Part of that protection is the inclusion of a super majority to amend those protections. I must assume, based upon the arguments of the left that they oppose the fact that to amend our federal constitution which requires a 2/3 vote. It is also why their number 1 argument favoring a “No” vote is proclaiming that “Issue 1 ends majority rule,” when in fact, the proposed 60 percent rule further protects the rights of minorities against the vagaries of simple majority rule.

Personally, I would prefer a 2/3 vote to pass amendments to our state constitution, akin to our federal requirements, but I will take the 60 percent rule over the current simple majority rule. Have you read our state constitution? It contains a lot of positive protections. However, it contains too many items that should not be in a constitution. I agree with many of the provisions therein that should be state law but should not be part of our constitution. Why are they in our state constitution? Because, since its inception, it has been too easy to amend it, and groups on both sides find it as easy to amend the constitution as it is to pass a state law. Constitutions are determinations and protections that should not be readily amendable via special interest groups on either side of the aisle as is currently the case.

As such, I urge everyone to vote “yes” on State Issue 1.

Donald Shrader


No posts to display