A Community Bill of Rights as an amendment to the Spokane charter sounds darned impressive. But let's start a dissection of this amendment, dealing first with the title. Bill of Rights? Hey, isn't there a United States Bill of Rights? Oh yeah, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Now, why didn't James Madison call those ten amendments a Community Bill of Rights. Are the Spokane authors saying something like that earlier Bill does not serve the "community." And what community might that be? Think about it.

June 8, 1789, Madison said the following: "For while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself: But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents."

Madison states well how I feel about the issue now before the voters of Spokane. I feel for the charter. In passing this thing we are opening the door so wide as to jeopardize the city's structure. It certainly does not limit itself to those provisions "against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents."

Anyway, coming up will be my thoughts on each specific of the Bill.