Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

Does anyone else have a bunch of proposals on the ballot in their state? Here in Michigan, there are six... and all of them aren't just referenda, they're amendments to the constitution. You see, MI never passed a public referendum law... but they can still be accomplished, because the state constitution can be modified by public vote. It's very stupid.

Huh... thinking on it, how common is that sort of thing? I know Florida's doing it (I'm probably going be voting yes on three of 'em; two for tax easement for disabled veterans and military families of deceased soldiers, one for tax easement on low-income elderly in older homes), but I wasn't aware it wasn't a normal thing among the states.

There's at least one really shitty one I expect to pass, though (Amendment eight, which basically gives private religious schools and shit like that a free run at public money. Whoever put down the language of that amendment needs to be drug out and shot a few times. Maybe just in extremities, I'unno.), and a few more that's more than a little iffy. Eleven total, and that's not a terribly high number as my memory serves me -- looking back through ballotpedia roughly confirmed that... as well as noting that most amendments in this state apparently get passed. Somewhat worrying, that.

[SealyStar]

Proposal One: To add the "Emergency Manager" protocol to the constitution. The only one I support.

Wait, you support unelected dictators being appointed to liquidate cities?

Especially when the appointed dictator is required to be from the banking institutions that are responsible for declaring the community insolvent?

while ending all local democratic processes and supervision?

^ This is what the law is for, specifically [To help 'financial burdens']. I'd love to see a pro-Emergency Manager law argument that isn't from a MI republican, because it's the least democratic and an extremely ineffective way to handle, well, anything.

In most cases, I doubt it would ever be necessary. But you never know, since Michigan's government, both Democrat and Republican, is fabulously incompetent... and while it could be better, the alternative is having no power at all in the matter... which would be even shittier, as incompetent city leaders ran their place into the ground.

[palsch]

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right.

[Scelly9]

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right.

God that is idiotic.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

In most cases, I doubt it would ever be necessary. But you never know, since Michigan's government, both Democrat and Republican, is fabulously incompetent... and while it could be better, the alternative is having no power at all in the matter... which would be even shittier, as incompetent city leaders ran their place into the ground.

I don't give a shit if the elected leaders are ineffective. They got elected. It's the issue where the appointed dictator is required to be from the banking institutions that are responsible for declaring the community insolvent [Read: they can and do claim a community is insolvent without warning and even in cases where they're not insolvent at all]. Then they suspend all elected [city councils, mayors, judges of local courts can be removed -and I assume replaced if the dictator wishes- without a peep] and publicly funded posts [along with fire departments, police forces, etc], which is an easy way for one person to hold all legislative and enforcement powers of a town irreversibly.

[scriver]

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right.

Like anybody, ever, anywhere, would try to ban hunting.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right.

God that is idiotic.

No it isn't. I think it's a great idea, actually. It advocates environmental conservation and protection. You can't hunt if the food chain is collapsed and you can't fish if industry is poisoning the rivers.

In fact....you could use this amendment to make a legal challenge against fracking, because of all the damage it causes.

Plus, hunting is quite literally one of the oldest pastimes of our entire species and the public land that hunting is usually conducted on belongs to everyone, and so everyone should have the right to it. Unprotected it could be nabbed up by the rich and powerful.

Look past the "lol rednecks" factor and think about the implications of this.

[Nadaka]

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2012_ballot_measures


http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Religious_Freedom,_Amendment_8_%282012%29
State funded religion! What could possibly go wrong?

[scriver]

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right.

God that is idiotic.

No it isn't. I think it's a great idea, actually. It advocates environmental conservation and protection. You can't hunt if the food chain is collapsed and you can't fish if industry is poisoning the rivers.

In fact....you could use this amendment to make a legal challenge against fracking, because of all the damage it causes.

Plus, hunting is quite literally one of the oldest pastimes of our entire species and the public land that hunting is usually conducted on belongs to everyone, and so everyone should have the right to it. Unprotected it could be nabbed up by the rich and powerful.

Look past the "lol rednecks" factor and think about the implications of this.

It is stupid because

Kentucky only has the one, making hunting a constitutional right.

Like anybody, ever, anywhere, would try to ban hunting.

Those other things would be better served by making a healthy nature a constitutional right.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That would be a lot less likely to pass due to stigma towards the environmentalist movement in a conservative place like Kentucky, and this pretty much does make healthy nature a constitutional right since it is a necessity for hunting. It gets the job done, so who cares?

[Scelly9]

Personally, I think it'll cause problems when hunting a specific species is outlawed because of it's population dying.

[tryrar]

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2012_ballot_measures


http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Religious_Freedom,_Amendment_8_%282012%29
State funded religion! What could possibly go wrong?

Great. The Legislature of this great state just caused the end of the world due to me headdesking so hard a chunk of my desk is now boring towards the earths core at hypersonic speeds.

Seriously though, wouldn't the US Supreme Court immediately strike this amendment down due to being unconstitutional according to the US Constitution?(you know, that whole separation of church and state thing?)

[Scelly9]

(you know, that whole separation of church and state thing?)

Yeah, that one thing that gets violated all the time?

[SealyStar]

(you know, that whole separation of church and state thing?)

Yeah, that one thing that gets violated all the time?

I heard a conservative say once that "separation of church and state is only one way- to stop the state from interfering with the church, not the other way around". I proceeded to laugh and cry at the same time at his outright ignorance.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Personally, I think it'll cause problems when hunting a specific species is outlawed because of it's population dying.

It states that the amendment is to act in such a way to conserve hunting and preserve the future of hunting through population control, so not allowing the hunting of an endangered species wouldn't be challenged, it would be mandated.