Florida Constitution (Ammendment #3)

South Florida Sun-Sentinel ^ | Friday Oct 27 | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

[davidosborne]

It's too easy to amend the Florida Constitution. The South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board recommends a YES vote on Constitutional Amendment No. 3 on the Nov. 7 ballot.

[davidosborne]

I expected more debate on #3.....

I would rather vote NO a hundred times on issues that are not constitutional matters than NOT have the opportunity to vote YES on something that really SHOULD be there...

ie....

THE MARIAGE AMMENDMENT !!!.....

I am not suggesting a consipiricy but if #3 passess it would make it much more difficult to get the Mariage Ammendment on the balot in 08'....

If there is already a debate on this issue on FR please post a link.. thanks

[davidosborne]

VOTE NO on #3

[NautiNurse]

We sorely need to limit the constitutional amendments appearing on every Florida ballot. The ballots don't include the entire amendment language, and they are written in slick legalese that the average citizen can't comprehend.

We need to nominate and vote for legislators who will represent and vote for our issues.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[peteram]

Vote YES on #3. Two Reasons:
1. The High Speed Rail Mandate
2. The Smaller Classroom Size Mandate

Both of these issues were placed on the ballot and Passed by the voters. However - NO ONE EVER EXPLAINED HOW WE WERE SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR THESE!!!!!!

Sure, it's easy to say "Yeah! I'd like that!" and vote yes to these mandates. But does anyone ever stop to think about how these initiatives would be paid without raising our taxes?

Don't get me wrong - I am in favor of both these issues. I'd love to see high speed rail in Florida and smaller class sizes. But these things cost money and until someone does an objective study on how to pay for these (outside of MASSIVE tax increases - remember, we have no State Income Tax - Yet) then I don't want them - or anything like them on the ballot.

I mean - how do Floridians expect to pay for these things? Surely voting for government mandates like these is like saying "Yeah - yank some more money out of my pockets!"

[outdriving]

I am voting no on this simply because it will serve to take power away from the people and give it to government.

There are certainly abuses like the "bullet train", gambling, pig's rights, etc.

However, no matter how much the people's wisdom may disappoint me, the legislature has proven itself venal as well as lacking wisdom.

Rather than steal popular power, I would like to see an amendment banning paid signature gathering. This would return the process to the grassroots and disenfranchise phony "citizens for" groups funded by special interests.

[davidosborne]

I agree with you on ALL points.. . however making it harder to get an initiative on the balot is NOT the answer... if we the people.. consistently vote NO on issues that do not belong in the constitution the legislature WILL get the message and DO THEIR JOB !! at the same time when the LEGISLATURE and the COURTS have gone astray we the people need this power to put them in check.... unfortunately many legislators think that because we vote NO on a constitutional ammendemnt that we do not support legislation that achieves the same effect.. it is up to US to set them straight..... CALL/Write/FAX...etc.... I can't tell you how many people questioned me on my opposition to ammendments that they thought would make good laws..... we need to hold the legislature accountable for their actions as well as their inactions.. we should not tollerate the legislature "passing the buck" to the people.... we should vote NO - on the CONSTITUTIONAL AMMENDMENTS... and tell them to vote on it.. and if we don't like the way they vote we should work towards replacing them........ in the next election......

[davidosborne]

Again, as I stated in the previous POST.. we need to VOTE NO on Constitutional Ammendments and hold our legislature accountable.... it is WAY too easy for the legislature to pass the buck to the people.... but the answer is not to take away the "power of the people"...

[peteram]

Well, rather than making it a 60% instead of 51% simple majority (which is how the ballot amendment is currently being proposed), what they out to do is keep it the way it is, but stipulate that any initiative that will cost money to implement must have research attached into it disclosing to voters how much of OUR tax dollars would go to implementing it. How much would OUR taxes increase to build a high-speed rail system. How much more of OUR tax money would be needed to reduce classroom sizes. A stipulation like this would pretty much exclude things like a Marriage Protection mandate. (BTW, I'm in favor of that, too)

[peteram]

So the government is then FORCED to do something simply because the people said so. Well, that sounds good in theory, but when you get some people suggesting mandates simply because of a "We want one and we want it NOW!" mentality - and not give the rest of us people the information regarding costs, etc.....then the theory is flawed.

People need to do the fiscal groundwork so the rest of us can make a more informed vote.

[davidosborne]

.......but stipulate that any initiative that will cost money to implement must have research attached into it disclosing to voters how much of OUR tax dollars would go to implementing it.

I think this was proposed as legislation in the past.. I think the legislators like to pass the buck the people so they don't have to make an argument for or against something........... this we can fix without shooting ourselves in the foot..... which is exactly what we are doing if we vote yes on #3.... IMHO

[peteram]

I think this was proposed as legislation in the past.. I think the legislators like to pass the buck the people so they don't have to make an argument for or against something

I think I recall something like that coming up. David, I really appreciate your concerns. I agree with them all. I don't know that much about the inner workings of the state legislature to say one way or the other about passing the buck. I do know that I want to see our way of life not being diminished because we have to pay for things that we cannot afford. I'm trying to be fiscally responsible. I just think it's fiscally irresponsible for a group of people to mandate that the government do something without giving all the cost estimates to us.

[davidosborne]

I agree with you... but this is not the solution to the problem... the solution is for we the people punt these issues back to the legislature to work out.... and retain our rights set them straight when they go astray...

[MIchaelTArchangel]

Am I the only person who sees the irony in amending the state constitution with a simple majority vote to require future amendments require a 60% vote?

[samantha]

vote yes on 1,3,and 8,all others are legislative matters,and do not belong in the Florida Constitution. Simple majority is how we got the Bullet train,very low classroom numbers,Pregnant pig overprotection,etc, all on the Ballot to be part of our Constitution. It is crazy,it is stupid to let Democrat Lawyers,Teacher's unions,Wacko animal rights creatures screw up our Constitution by getting enough signatures and filing out the proper paperwork to get their stupid agenda on the ballot where 51 percent of the Public will vote it into our constitution. They know that the people do not pay attention and they also will vote all three left wing liberal Florida Supreme Ct judges to be retained in office. That is why we need a Yes on amendment three to keep our Constitution free of crap,and only have appropriate amendments instituted into the Constitution.

[rep-always]

DEFINITELY VOTE NO ON 3 AND VOTE A STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN TICKET.

[Paradox]

I'm voting YES on 3, because its been a FAULT of the Florida Constitution for all this time, to allow a change with only a 50% vote. Look at other state constitutions, and the US constitution, some kind of supermajority it needed. Thats how it should be here as well. Besides, this should help protect against those silly LIBERAL ideas that are offered and often passed. The conservative ones will pass by more than 60%, I'm confident.

I understand your point of view, I just respectfully disagree.

[outdriving]

You make an excellent point. Disclosing the projected costs of public works projects would make a more informed voter.

Of course, the process of determining the "projected" cost would involve lots of creative accounting from both sides of an issue.

Perhaps an average based on the best and worst estimates? I can see it now.....

"Floridians for a bullet train" would claim it is revenue neutral or bound to make a profit someday. And "Floridians who think trains are a stupid waste of money" will project a cost of trillions. Of course we could always retain "independent" estimates beholden to the government agents that hire them.

Well heck, it's still better than we've got now. I'd support it.

Now I'm thinking about advertising. Obviously, the Ballys of the world had millions to buy television time to support casino gambling. Opposition groups had little by comparison. Same with the bullet train and classroom size.

Can we level the playing field here without giving Rush a fit over the First Amendment?

[davidosborne]

Great Point.. maybe there should be a clause in the proposed ammendment that says this Ammendment shall only be in effect if passed by 60% of the voters....

[davidosborne]

QUESTION??? If this ammendment passes by LESS than 60% would that not create a "constitutional crisis"