Gazette editorial on changes to Wisconsin state constitution

As I was compiling another round up of Wisconsin political news for my website Defend Wisconsin News Round Up (www.DefendWisconsin.blogspot.com), it occurred to me that a lot of lawmakers in our state are proposing constitutional amendments.  And since this seems like something that a local newspaper would consider perfect material for an editorial (in my opinion), I sent an email to Greg Peck who writes most of the editorials at Janesville Gazette, asking him what the Gazette might think about all of these proposed changes.

Before too long I heard back from Greg, and together we put together a fairly extensive list of constitutional amendments proposed over the last few months in Wisconsin.  Somewhat to my surprise, Greg indicated that he was going to quote my email in his blog that usually precedes the editorial in the paper.  To those outside of Janesville Gazette distribution area, Gazette publishes a blog previewing its editorials but you have to buy the paper in order to see what the editorial actually says.  Thus, my email was quoted in the blog but not in the editorial.

Here's what Greg wrote about my email in his blog Should we make changes in state constitution?

"Janesville City Councilman Yuri Rashkin nudged us toward exploring this issue earlier this week.  “…It seems our lawmakers must not like our constitution a whole lot since they want to change it so much,” Rashkin wrote me by email.  He seemed to be on to something."  Naturally, I was curious what the Gazette might write about this issue in the end.

Here is the gist of the editorial that appeared in Sunday's edition of the Janesville Gazette:

"Some of these proposals might have merit.  In particular, we strongly support making the Legislature follow the open meting law and its advance notice provision, which lawmakers long ago required of every school, municipal and county government.

...the constitution has served Wisconsin well for more than 150 years, and some of these proposals could erode our representative form of government.  Lawmakers should look carefully before leaping toward changes amid today's partisan strife."  

While many argue that Gazette does nothing but show its partisan biased colors, this editorial to me seems fairly balanced.  It acknowledges that some changes may need to take place, and in fact it endorses the amendment offered by Assembly Democrats, yet the editorial warns lawmakers to be cautious about changing the constitution.  

What do you think?  Is constitution a living document that should be tweaked and adjusted as need be or should it be left alone in reverence?