"It's up to the majority of the voters, acting through their duly elected representatives, bound by both their State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.""
BS
In Arizona, we have a ballot initiative process. It's part of the constitution. You're trying to make a distinction where there is none.
"Take either side of the argument -- but take one, not both."
I was pointing out that you had taken both sides. Stop twisting spinning and lying. If you can!
"Oh baloney. That's not what Proposition 105 did. Proposition 105 changed the initiative process in general, requiring more votes from the legislature to overturn goofy propositions. The legislature acted legally."
No, it passed because voters were furious that the legislature had gutted ballot initiatives. So much for RP, champion of the will of the people. You're nothing but champion of the jackboot thugocracy.
"Yes. That's part of it. Another part changed medical marijuana "prescriptions" to medical marijuana "recommendations" and set up a medical marijuana program for patients and caregivers. And it was defeated."
As I said, you made an apples to oranges comparison. You supported the ballot initiative when you got your way, and didn't support it when you didn't. How flexible of you, Kerry Seinfeld.
"Of course not. Just like I know any time now that you're going to add that George Soros, Peter Lewis, and John Sperling funded all of these initiatives through the Arizonans for Drug Policy Reform and The People Have Spoken groups. Which, of course, is another drawback to the initiative process."
I don't care who sponsored it. Their stink did not ruin what were valid initiatives that passed.
Here we have it.
You support the law when it follows your opinion.
You make excuses when it doesn't.
You aren't about rule of law. You're about rule of Robert Paulsen.
That the legislature legally gutted goofy ballot initiatives. Proposition 105 changed the future legislative requirement for gutting from 51% to 75%.
"I don't care who sponsored it."
You should. Outsiders came into your state to sponsor a so called "voter-driven" initiative. They outspent local opponents 20:1 to get those initiatives passed -- and failed.
Gee, maybe next time when you "don't care", it'll be Sarah Brady and her group.
"You support the law when it follows your opinion."
Nope. I told you right up front what my position was. I even put it in bold. Since it's obvious your bus is really, really short, I'll state it one more time:
"It's up to the majority of the voters, acting through their duly elected representatives, bound by both their State Constitution and the U.S. Constitution."
The referendum process, a strict democracy, is legal yet flawed. The Founding Fathers rejected such a system, opting for a representative republic. I favor the latter.
YOU cited the Arizona referendums. Since we were playing in your ballpark, I cited other Arizona referendums which went the other way. We played by YOUR rules, and now you're crying and want to take your ball and go home.
Fine. Good-by.