Cable news over the weekend focused on Missouri. Apparently, we’re the United States in miniature here. One of the fun things about the Missouri constitution is that it can be amended by simple majority vote, so every year that goes by it less and less resembles a constitution – a statement of how government works — and more and more it’s just another part of the state legal code.

So here are the complete set of amendments and propositions for the entire state.

Amendment 2:
This is an excercise in public relations. It’s being sold as a measure that would (1) ensure access to stem stell cures, and (2) outlaw cloning. What it really does is (and why Jack Danforth is so involved) ensure researchers at Washington University will be able to engage in embryonic stem cell research without any restrictions by the state of Missouri.

Any cures will be years down the road. Adult stem cells, which noboby has an objection to, already have cures. Now much is made of the potential of embryonic stem cells, but I’m old enough to remember how interferon was going to be a cure all, and even more recently how cancer was licked. So the idea that Missouri needs access to such cures right now is pure bushwa.

And that brings us to part 2, which is the so called ban on cloning. What supporters don’t tell you is that reproductive cloning is baned, but somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning is constitutionally protected by the amendment. That runs counter to my desires – as I have said before, I’m fine with reproductive cloning, but I’m against creating embryos just so they can be destroyed. I don’t appreciate the way the ads in support just come out and lie about this, and it’s not like this is some oversight, but this is the real agenda of the amendment and the full text is quite careful to make sure that SCNT cloning is not outlawed – just reproductive cloning.

While I don’t think this amendment will make much difference one way or another, I’m voting against it because (1) it is deliberately misleading, and (2) it doesn’t belong in the constitution.

Amendment 3:
This is a tax on tobacco. I don’t have a problem with raising taxes on tobacco, but why does it have to be a constitutional amendment, and why are we setting up the Healthy Future Fund? I’m voting against because it’s legislation, and therefore doesn’t belong in the constitution. Put it to me as a proposition, make it a straight tax to raise revenue, and you’ve got my vote. I’m getting tired of all the deception.

Amendment 6:
This amendment will create a tax exemption for real and personal property that is used or held for nonprofit purposes or activities of veterans’ organizations. I’m going to vote yes on this one.

Amendment 7:
This amendment is supposed to stop state pensions for statewide officeholding felons and change the rules about legislator compensation. OK, I’m voting for this one too. I’m all for not paying felons, and let’s face it, the legislature is going to figure out a way to get more money one way or another, so I might as well just get it over with now.

Proposition B:
I’m against the whole minimum wage mentality that somehow it represents anything other than the rate of completely unskilled labor and should be set by anything other than market forces. I realize this is a popular measure, but I’d rather see improvements to Earned Income Credits and other forms of poverty relief that provide good incentives than intervention into the labor market, especially one like this that happens every year. In other words, I’m voting no.