THE RHODE ISLAND CONSTITUTION

The Rhode Island Constitution is a moderately interesting document, but it really doesn’t fully deliver what it offers. As former RI Supreme Court Justice Robert Flanders has pointed out on various occasions before the Legislature, in judicial opinions, and at various public meetings related to the understanding and interpretation of the Rhode Island Constitution, the document is not regarded as self-executing in that it may not allow an ordinary citizen to seek enforcement of various parts of the document.

The gist of Flanders’ argument is that the RI Constitution, based on Supreme Court opinions, often falls short when attempting application. The Court has held that many rights granted to the people in the Rhode Island Constitution are, in essence, subject to the Legislative approval.

The enforcement of various protections by individuals under the RI Constitution is limited to what enforcement has been granted by the Legislature. In short, the document is not self-executing and quite often a member of the citizenry is found lacking proper standing to seek redress. Therefore, the expressed rights of the people are at times limited unless the legislature expressly grants the enforcement.

This may seem to be inconsequential, as well as highly technical, to most readers, but the fact is that this is probably one of the most important issues of constitutional interpretation facing Rhode Island. The fact that the people are granted rights that cannot be easily enforced is a farce, and yet people pay little time or attention to the matter.

It is important that we learn more about the argument that Flanders proffers. This is really in the interest of all Rhode Islanders and is just plain old good government being responsive, not to mention responsible, to the people it serves. There is no reason that people should be denied rights because it is left to the legislature to enable enforcement. This is a warped sense of freedom.

And there are far more Rhode Island Constitution issues. As most everyone knows, I have a grave concern over the provision for a utterly impotent Lieutenant Governor's office that has less powers than any other full time Lieutenant Governor in the entire United States. The price of this inefficiency is paid by taxes.

There is a problem in that the people have not fully secured separation of powers. There is a concern that the people do not have voter initiative as is found in more than half of our sister states. It is a problem that we are not allowed to petition our government for redress as is guaranteed. It is a problem that we are not allowed to petition for constitutional change, except at the behest of the Legislature or by a vote every ten years.

I will readily admit that much of my view of this topic is tinged by a taste of sour grapes. The system doesn’t run the way I would like and so I would like to tinker with the system. Granted. But this does not mean that it is wrong to seek changes in a system that has not properly served the society.

Why should we perpetuate rules that keep entrenched power entrenched? There is little reason we should tolerate bad governance, corruption, and poor or inadequate protections simply because the "rules are the rules". Rules are made to be changed. Rules should always provide guidance drawn from experience, but should not be made so inflexible that they complicate rather than effectuate. I am a proponent of such change. I would prefer an effective, efficient, more tolerant, honest, equal, and constituent oriented government. Sorry if that offends you.

The changes that we make are usually hard-fought and are reluctantly granted by the powers that be. Even good government forces have learned to play the game and have often traded on their good name to effectuate policy that leans in a particular direction. They have learned to swim in the cesspool that is the legislature. This is disheartening at best, but often required if they are to get any policy changes. This should not be.

Next time I discuss this topic, I will most likely return to the issues raised in the paragraphs above, but give them a deeper examination, along with the current status of the fight to get them implemented. Until these changes occur, most Rhode Islanders will continue in their life of uninformed bliss and not make any effort to improve their government or their situation beyond what the government provides for them. That is the epitome of a sorry state.