This is an opinion column.

I’m gonna be straight with you. I‘ve rarely seen an Alabama Constitutional Amendment I’d rally behind.

Maybe if they proposed one to ditch the old constitution and start over.

I could get behind that. Maybe. Depending on who writes the new one.

But generally speaking I default to “no.” Because we already have a constitution as long as Charles Dickens’ Bleak House and darn near as hard to read. Because a constitution should be a set of carefully considered rights and rules. Not campaign fliers.

So if you have a smidgen of doubt vote “no” on an any Alabama constitutional amendment. Always.

Amendment 1, which comes to you in the name of “religious liberty.” This one, conceived by Senator and Pander-mentarian Gerald Dial, makes a point of saying Alabamian has every right to worship a god or not. Like … now. In fact the 1901 Constitution puts it surprisingly succinctly:

That no religion shall be established by law; that no preference shall be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; that no one shall be compelled by law to attend any place of worship; nor to pay any tithes, taxes, or other rate for building or repairing any place of worship, or for maintaining any minister or ministry.

But Dial’s freedom phrase is just warmup to his real point, which is to say the Ten Commandments can be displayed on schools or state property. It goes on to say no public money can be spent to defend the constitutionality of doing so.

Which means it means nothing. It is just more pandering. Vote no.

Amendment 2, the powder keg that declares Alabama’s commitment to the sanctity of life and to unborn children. It calls for “right to life in all manners and measures appropriate and lawful,” and appears to stand for things many Alabamians hold dear. Simple.

Except – like most political stunts hatched by the Legislature – it’s not really that simple. There’s no consideration for rape or incest or embryos preserved in a lab. If life begins at conception – as this amendment implies – must those be preserved forever? And if the state uses all means and measures to ensure the life of the unborn, will women who suffer miscarriages be prosecuted at the whims of those who think she should have done something differently?

And as long as we’re talking life, what does standing for its sanctity mean for all those sitting on death row? It clearly wasn’t intended to preserve those lives, but it doesn’t say that.

This thing has unintended consequences written all over it. You can support life and still vote no.

Amendment 3, which gives the University of Alabama Board of Trustees more power to control their own wants and needs, removes the State Superintendent of Education from the board and ends the requirement that people over 70 must resign. Call it the “Welcome back Paul Bryant Jr. Amendment.”

Granted, 70 ain’t what it used to be. But this amendment lets the self-appointing UA board – already one of the most powerful forces in the state – get what they want and answer to no one. Vote no.

Amendment 4 changes the way legislators are replaced if they leave office late in their terms. If a legislator leaves office now, the governor must set a special election for the replacement. Under this amendment, no special election would be set if the lawmaker splits in the last 14 months in office.

Which seems to make sense. I mean, we don’t really need two elections in a year, particularly when the part-time legislature meets early in the year. But it also could potentially leave some districts without representation during that final session.

You guessed it. Just say no.

John Archibald, a Pulitzer Prize winner, is a columnist for Reckon by AL.com. His column appears in The Birmingham News, the Huntsville Times, the Mobile Register and AL.com. Write him at jarchibald@al.com.