I'd actually suggest we have a State Convention and rewrite it .(The current Constitution was adopted in 1945 and has been amended about 122 times since then). As I said earlier IP reform is a catch 22.

I am of the belief that State Constitutions should be like the Federal constitution, a frame work that creates the limits of Government. The legislative, as elected by the people, should fill in those limits in with laws in a the manner that best serves the people.

We both clearly have different views on what should be in a Constitution and what should instead be simple legislation.

All other state tax issues aside, I'm for keeping control as close to home as possible.  I don't want the feds fiddling with stuff the state can more efficiently do.  I don't want the state fiddling with things that the local municipality should be able to do more efficiently.  If that local municipality wants to vote in local sales taxes and development districts, I'm for letting them do it.  I don't want to micro manage their little corner of the world, so long as they leave my little corner of the world alone.  Let the market sort it out.  If folks don't like the local taxes, let them go one town over and spend their money there.

That's actually the way it works. There is a statewide sales tax but the local component has to be voted on by the locals. Same with property taxes, those are approved locally.

I don't have any confidence that today's political climate would produce a better constitution. If the make up of the convention delegates is based on population, you'd have a bunch of St. Louis and KC folks making the decisions. How would that be any different that the amendment process? (ETA: Honestly, I wouldn't want the far right writing a new constitution either.)

As for us having different views, I don't know whether that's true or not. You haven't said which parts of the state constitution you think are bad and which you'd change. You say it's too big, but you haven't offered any examples of things that should be eliminated.

I'll offer an example of where I think you're right.

This past Tuesday, voters approved a constitutional change that increases the percent of the Kansas City's budget that must be spent on the police department. Personally, I think it's total bullshit that the city of Kansas City doesn't control its own police department's budget. But it's in the constitution. You'd think that freedom loving/local control politicians would want to change that. You'd be wrong. They wanted to take more control away from a local community.

There was no great public groundswell to change the constitutionally mandated minimum funding for the KCPD. It came about because one powerful Republican legislator wanted to act like he was tough on crime and "back the blue." The whole thing was an election year stunt. The voters fell for it. But then the courts tossed it out because the fiscal note attached to the original vote was flawed. They put it on the ballot again and, once again, voters approved it. The change from 20% minimum to 25% minimum is now the law of the land, enshrined in the Constitution. No future anti-police city council can slash the KCPD budget.

This past Tuesday, the voters also decided that child care facilities were not entitled to a property tax exemption. In both cases (the child care property tax and the police budge) the PEOPLE decided. What's the alternative? We could let the legislature make all the decisions. Our only say would be at election time when we decide to throw the bums out.

Some constitutional provisions are bad. But others are absolutely necessary. Who's to decide? Well, if it's in the constitution, the people do. Sometimes they choose wisely. Sometimes they choose poorly. It's never going to be perfect, but if we have to err, in a lot of cases I don't mind erring on giving the people the final say.

ETA: Some coverage of the KC police funding issue: Missouri voters pass constitutional amendment requiring increased Kansas City police funding