On frivolously amending the Constitution

This article (from The City Paper) reveals something about how not to amend a Constitution.

"The delay on imposing the amendment has been beneficial, Mahery said, because of the attorney general’s opinion that clarified differences of opinion on seniors maximum amount of income.

“It was very wise to wait and to make sure that they were methodically and thoughtfully thinking out the plan because once you put this plan into motion, it would be awfully, awfully hard to rescind it,” Mahery said."

Uh, yep. It is hard to rescind (not for the reasons Mahery is thinking), but it ought to be even harder to change the overarching statute for our state.

The most recent Constitutional amendment treating some citizens differently than others (but leaving the definition open for the legislature to fill in the blanks) is, according to the article, "causing far more controversy than the ban on gay marriage . . ." Newsflash: the legislature is disagreeing over how "generous" to be with the category of "senior citizens." How wise is it to amend the State Constitution so that it is little more than Chapter 67 of the Tennessee Code?