3 ms·
Yes, but I think you're missing the point. The Montana constitution was adopted in 1972 in a constitutional convention. The people that were elected to that con
by sophacles 3y ago
Yes, but I think you're missing the point. The Montana constitution was adopted in 1972 in a constitutional convention. The people that were elected to that convention were not the legislature (because the previous constitution forbade someone from holding 2 elected offices at one time). The people elected were largely not even politicians, just regular people.
Therefore it shouldn't matter at all - the parent post comes from a position of "the people must be ruled over" and the Montana constitution has a "will of the people" vibe.
- lolinder 3y agoI'm not sure what in your comment actually contradicts what I just said. OP argued that the court was out of line, I responded that the court was doing its job in interpreting the Constitution that the people of Montana put in place. What the grandparent poster may or may not have implied about people being ruled over seems immaterial to the question of whether the court was making policy or interpreting the Constitution. The way these systems are set up is that if the will of the people is united enough then they can modify the Constitution. As it is, the people of Montana clearly indicated their intention to protect the environment, and state laws prohibiting experts in the executive branch from even considering a specific class of environmental impact are pretty obviously out of line with the intent of the Constitution.