I do not doubt Prof. Carpenter's statement that in 1919, the Secretary of State was given the authority to choose an "appropriate title" for amendments passed by the legislature. But I believe the argument fails that this is a proper creation of separation of powers.

As we have seen with the federal government, Congress cannot create new legislation that alters existing separation of powers relationships that are in the Constitution. The War Powers Act comes to mind. When I have read the Minnesota Constitution in the past, I recall seeing the language about the Legislature having the authority to place questions on the ballot. I do not recall anything being said about the Governor or Secretary of State. Both are constitutional officers and I don't believe the state constitution gives them a role in the process. If they were to have a role, it would be in the constitution.

I find the professor's claim that the Secretary of State had the legal obligation to exercise "independent" judgment to be alarming. This so called "independence" could easily create a situation where the Secretary of State could completely change the intent of a ballot question without any constitutional authority to do so. I do not believe that the Legislature has the power to transfer their authority in a situation like this.

As treasurer of the group that opposes the amendment, I question whether the professor has a slight bias on this issue.

Another failed creation of separation of powers that comes to mind is the Presidential line item veto during the Reagan years.

John, do you honestly expect anyone to believe that your displeasure with Richie's actions are philosophical rather than driven by your presumed support for the amendment? If it's an either-or question, I think the decision by Richie (who was elected and not appointed, by the way) passes the smell test. You are uncomfortable with Richie using his rights as secretary of state to word the ballot question in a more balanced manner but apparently have no issue with a GOP-controlled legislature that is attempting a run-around on the checks and balances that allow the Governor to take part in an attempt to change the state constitution by putting it straight to the voters, which obviously has worked so well in California. You can't have it both ways.

Please separate partisanship and your personal opinions from the process. My comments were worded in a manner where they could apply to either of the two amendments on the ballot this fall, the Legacy Amendment, or any other amendment in the past.

The question is a matter of law, not perceived fairness, and certainly not "smell". Rights are granted to government officials by the people through the Constitution.

In 1857, voters approved the Constitution in this state. Please read the Constitution. This crazy talk of "run-around" is ridiculous. Every state has a different Constitution but they all have one thing in common. They were approved by the voters. In Minnesota, only the legislature has the authority to place ballot questions before the people. In Wisconsin, they have to approve ballot questions in two different sessions. The people in the end decide.

In Minnesota, only the legislature can set the rate of pay for Judges. Governor has no say. Is this an end run around the Governor? No. It is called the process.

In Minnesota, the Governor can pick whomever he/she wants when there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court. Is this an end run around the Legislature? How about the people? No it is not. It is the process.

When the Legacy Amendment went on the ballot. The Governor at the time did not support it. Where you out there shouting "run-around"? For some reason, I doubt it.

The process applies no matter what the ballot question is.

Interesting issue. Check out this: http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/policy-in-detail/longstanding-court-precedent-clearly-supports-putting-voter-id-on-the-

and this:

http://www.amexp.org/blog/201206/ritchie-has-no-authority-to-replace-constitutional-amendment-titles-provided-by-legislat

Both are good treatments of the issue.

Thanks for the link Donald. Randy, please read Donald's links. They spell out the issue in better detail than I did.

You may not like what the articles say, but that is the process. No special treatment has been given to one group over another. The process has remained relatively unchanged for decades.

Could the process be improved? Certainly. But you are not going to get anywhere by shouting the sky is falling from the mountain tops.

Constitutional amendments are not restricted to the state. Cities can also have them. Over half of the state's population live in cities that have Home Rule Charter form of government. In other words, they have constitutions of their own. In many cities, it only takes a handful of appointed and/or elected officials to put something on the ballot. Sometimes only a small number of signatures are required for citizens to do the same. Is this fair? I don't know. It is just what the process is.

Maybe the title should be "VOTE YES"!!!

I assume that Donald and the other limited government people who post on this website will be voting no. The pursuit of happiness is a right guaranteed by the federal constitution. Same-sex marriage poses no danger or undue hardship to the citizens of this country. Therefore government should not be treading upon this right.

Your almost there Chris, but not quite. The truly libertarian position on this issue is that government (state or federal) should not recognize ANY marriage, not that government should recognize ALL marriage.

Why should government pass any legislation that favors a group of people who choose to "marry" over a group of people who choose not to marry?

Mr.Lee is entirely right. Supporters of the Marriage Amendment do believe in the benefits of a limited government. Progressives generally believe in a government without boundaries. We live in a Constitutional Republic. State and Federal Constitutions can be amended, language can be added to provide clarity. Conservatives tend to accept the common understanding of words, and rely on them to communicate ideas. Most people know that how a question is stated can elicit a desired response more frequently. Remember the proposed amendment retains what is already understood and accepted. Why didnt supporters of homosexual marriage offer their own amendment, one that would have legalized homosexual marriage? It never was offered in all the years that the DFL was in the majority. Is it because they did not want it put to a vote? Were they looking for a sympathetic judge?

Wow, we have gotten way off topic!

"I favor people being free to make their own choices AND shoulder the consequences of their actions. Do you favor something else? (If my choices are not my own, who will decide what I may do? )" Ohhh - now, I know the answer..... the neo-con, tea-party, faux-libertarian, nation-under-God, founding-father-myth adherents will decide. Well, at least that's settled.

Brad, I agree. Government shouldn't recognize any "marriages". As far as government is concerned, it should just be a contract that binds people together legally and financially. People who've entered these contracts should receive no tax or other governmental benefits beyond what those who haven't get. I do think that there should be significant tax breaks for people with children - whether they're "under contract" or not. It's extremely important to our nation's future financial success to maintain or even increase our birthrate and kids cost a lot of money. But again, DINK's under contract shouldn't get any benefits beyond what people who aren't under contract receive.

John, yes and sorry. Some of the stuff people say on here just grates my rear. It makes it hard to stay on topic. Now about that Ritchie character...

I don't think I would quibble over whether Secretary of State Mark Richie has the authority to provide a title to an amendment to clearly characterize the amendment. I do have a problem with an elected official in charge of making sure we have fair and honest elections using the powers of his office to title an amendment to slant the outcome in his favor. He and Attorney General Lori Swanson aren't even embarrassed by this thinly veiled attempt to influence the outcome of the election. If he were performing his job honorably we won't even know his position on the election. Where is the outrage of this morally corrupt decision? Legal, yes; moral, no. How can we have faith that he will execute the powers of his office in a fair manner? For those of you who will reactively defend his actions think ahead to the time when your opposition will occupy that same office. Could you support the next Secretary of State creating a title for an amendment you supported in a manner to confuse and discourage voting? I think not.

Randy, when you use such slanted language like "bypass the governor" it makes it difficult to have a discussion on the legality of the issue.

Let me be crystal clear. The Legislature DID NOT bypass the governor. The Legislature CANNOT send a constitutional amendment to his desk no matter how much they want to.

THE PEOPLE of the State of Minnesota voted in the constitution and all of it's amendments. The Legislature only had the role of casting their individual votes at the ballot box.

Donald's links show that Randy is not correct. Ritchie does NOT have the authority to reword the title of an amendment that has been supplied by the legislature. He is also not correct that it is 'bypassing' the governor. The Constitution gives the legislature the power to send amendments directly to the people and it excludes the governor from intervening. So the people themselves have told the governor to "butt out" and will decide the matter for themselves this November.

And yes, the Legislature has the authority to title amendments any way they choose just as they have the authority to word the amendment any way they choose so long as it meets the one constitutional requirement of not being misleading. And the MNSC will decide if it meets that requirement. The legislature DID do their jobs and sent a bill to Dayton who promptly vetoed it according to his party masters' wishes. The MN Constitution gives the legislature another venue to bring forth law and they exercised that legal power.

Just because you don't like that they have a way to overcome the Dayton roadblock doesn't make it immoral or illegal no matter how liberals 'feel' about it. This is law, and here is one instance where liberals can't use judges or state officials to ignore it.

Fortunately we don't yet solve legal questions by competing blogs on the internet or by comments made by people who are anonymous...

So the question will go to court and be decided.

The Court has now weighed in. Basically separation of powers argument won the day. Now it is up to the people to decide. The legislature can only place questions before the voters. They don't go into effect until the people vote in the affirmative. I'm happy groups like the League of Women Voters lost. I did not appreciate how some of them talked about how they wanted to keep this off the ballot, or in other words, take away our right to vote.

Hey Don~

Thanks for pointing it out. I've removed the comment in question.

Got them. Thanks again, Don!

Thanks! Got it.