Contentious ballot issues
- Thread starter bhsup
- Start date
Dunno. Honestly, I wasn't even really opposed to the idea of protecting farmers (though I was unaware they were under attack to begin with) but this amendment is just -way- too vague. IF they'd had some specifics about what they wanted to protect, I would have been far more willing to give it a yes vote.
For instance, I would not be happy if Missouri suddenly decided "Hey, you know what, your 13 year old kid can no longer operate your tractor on your property. It's dangerous and we don't like that, so stop it. Wait until they are 18."
For instance, I would not be happy if Missouri suddenly decided "Hey, you know what, your 13 year old kid can no longer operate your tractor on your property. It's dangerous and we don't like that, so stop it. Wait until they are 18."
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Even if they had some specifics, those specifics wouldn't likely warrant a general case.
Rule of thumb...if what you are doing is frowned on by a simple majority, the solution to the problem is not just making it so that it takes more than a simple majority to put a stop to it. Yes, we all sometimes have to deal with majorities that are over zealous or under informed, but disempowering majorities won't really help.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
If you watch conversations on agriculture it does sometimes have some merit. Which is why I mentioned it's tempting. If I had a nickel for every time an environmental studies Phd advocated for a counterproductive(even assuming all their goals at face value) methodology regulation on production I'd have an embarrassingly large amount of nickels.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Understood. The thing is that this kind of 'make change harder' legislation cuts both ways. The 'expert' with his off track thinking may still be able to get his way...and when it doesn't work it is just as much harder to change back as it was to change in the first place.
Gori the Grey
The Poster
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 13,428
This is where the good citizens of Missouri (however pronounced) need to push. Insist that it be spelled out what looming infringements are so threatening as to warrant a constitutional amendment to protect against.
Even that language "shall not be infringed" is demagoguery, designed to stir up second amendment supporters to think something as vital as their gun rights is under attack.
bhsup, you gotta stop this thing.
I did my best, man. I'm only one vote! I suppose I could have tried to be more...
Funny you mention the guns, though. There was an amendment on there about them as well. The summary, though, is pretty vague so I had to look up the exact language. What it does is protect against the State saying "Well okay fine, you can buy the gun, but you can't buy ammo" and other situations where evil anti-gun politicians would try to do end runs around gun rights. So yeah, I gave that one a big YES.
Funny you mention the guns, though. There was an amendment on there about them as well. The summary, though, is pretty vague so I had to look up the exact language. What it does is protect against the State saying "Well okay fine, you can buy the gun, but you can't buy ammo" and other situations where evil anti-gun politicians would try to do end runs around gun rights. So yeah, I gave that one a big YES.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Yeah. Don't worry, this isn't the US Constitution, just our State's
Hold up a minute...
This was a ballot initiative, so 50% to pass. It creates a law that will make it necessary to have a constitutional amendment in order to regulate agriculture, rather than just the state legislature using their normal process. That doesn't mean the constitutional amendment process is a flat majority vote. It actually doesn't say anything about what that process is, near as I can make out, just that it has to be used. For all I know amending the Missouri constitution may require having Moses' ghost carry a stone tablet down the Gateway Arch.
Edit: Ooops. Ignore all that. Holy cow, a simple majority on a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution. Does that seem a little too easy to anyone else?
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Farmers were not under attack in MO, it was big business and puppy mills that pushed it as far as I can tell.
Thanks for the update, I was in Utah when the votes came in and didn't see the election being called.
Er, I should clarify that. We -can- have four elections per year. Don't always. Those are the slots available for government entities to put things on ballots.
Regarding the right to farm thing, re-reading this thread and going by things I've read since the election, I need to eat a smidge of crow regarding the initial push for the bill. Phrossack, it seems, was correct that it initially grew out of the whole puppy mill issue. However, it did rapidly get overtaken by big agriculture interests quicker than you can say <insert something witty here.>
Also, it's going to cause a LOT of lawsuits that are gonna cost the State a crap ton of money.
Regarding the right to farm thing, re-reading this thread and going by things I've read since the election, I need to eat a smidge of crow regarding the initial push for the bill. Phrossack, it seems, was correct that it initially grew out of the whole puppy mill issue. However, it did rapidly get overtaken by big agriculture interests quicker than you can say <insert something witty here.>
Also, it's going to cause a LOT of lawsuits that are gonna cost the State a crap ton of money.
