When deciding "yes" or "no" on a constitutional amendment, a voter's role changes from a selector of officeholders -- presidents, senators, legislators, sheriffs -- to "constitution maker." The voter then is not choosing between candidates for a two- or four- or six-year term, but adopting a policy for the state that is likely to last for generations. Constitution making is serious business.

I have long been an admirer of the Minnesota Constitution . It does well what a constitution should do and does hardly anything that a constitution should not do.

In the early 1970s, to protect my admired constitution from those who thought a few obsolete and awkward provisions indicated substantive defects, I undertook a stylistic rewrite of the document. I then won overwhelming approval of my draft from a Constitutional Study Commission, from both houses of the Legislature, and then, in 1974, from Minnesota voters.

So now the Minnesota Constitution is not only substantively sound, but is free of embarrassing trivia such as describing our northern border as "the British Possessions" rather than "Canada." And we took out 4,000 words that had served their purpose and become meaningless.

So now the state Constitution is not just substantively sound; it is also up to date and grammatically sound. It is a great document in all respects.

How did this come about? The answer is simple. For more than 150 years, Minnesotans -- legislators and voters -- have treated the document with respect -- and with care. We have never used it as a vehicle for ordinary lawmaking, that is, as a vehicle for overriding or substituting for legislative decisions.

We have treated it for what it is -- the charter for our state government. The question I now ask is whether either of the amendments to be voted on this November have a place in this great document.

• • •

A good constitution, like Minnesota's, does three things. First, it sets up the structure of government. That is, it creates the legislative, executive and judicial branches and establishes a few basic rules relating to those branches and to local government units. Second, it protects our most fundamental rights. Third, it guards against having the Legislature and governor succumb to the worst temptations of financial irresponsibility, power-grabbing and favor-granting that history -- experience -- has exposed.

A good constitution, like Minnesota's, does nothing more.

A good constitution, like Minnesota's, leaves most policymaking in the hands of each new Legislature. The truth is that constitution makers, when they write or amend the basic charter, are not at that moment better informed on most issues than a future legislature will be. Unless an issue falls within one of the three things constitutions are for, the policy question of how to deal with a problem or opportunity or reality that arises in the future should be left to the future.

Some provisions of Minnesota's Constitution appear to do something more than the three appropriate constitutional functions. But, looked at realistically, each of those provisions is mostly for show.

For example, the Legacy Amendment of 2008 left the appropriation and taxing powers of the Legislature undiminished. The highway article, likewise, leaves apportionment of street and highway funds ultimately in the hands of each new Legislature, although it does compel a division of management responsibility for streets and highways between state and local governments. (That is, in essence, a government structure rule.) The constitutional mandate to create "a uniform and general system of public schools" leaves up to each new Legislature --biennium after biennium -- the power to appropriate money to support those schools, and thus the power to make that admirable mandate meaningful or meaningless.

The most common word of real meaning in the Minnesota Constitution is "may." Its frequency shows that the document rarely binds the hands of legislators to respond appropriately (if wise enough) to the opportunities of their day.

In my opinion, not one provision in the Minnesota Constitution is a precedent for adding either of this year's Legislature-shackling amendments.

• • •