Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 09/25/2010 9:15:19 PM PDT by GVnana
California voters believe global warming is a significant issue and are inclined to trust scientific views on the subject, but they remain closely divided on a November ballot measure that would suspend the state's global warming statute, according to a new Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California poll.
California’s global warming law, passed in 2006, is aimed at slashing greenhouse gas emissions by power plants, factories and vehicles.
The ballot initiative, Proposition 23, would delay implementation of the law until California unemployment drops to 5.5% and stays at that level for a year. Unemployment is now over 12%, and a sustained level at or below 5.5% has rarely been achieved, so environmental advocates argue that the initiative would in effect put the law on indefinite hold.
-snip-
On the ballot measure itself, the survey showed that about one-fifth of likely voters had not yet taken a position. Forty percent favor the initiative and 38% oppose it, essentially a dead heat. Typically, experts say that a ballot initiative that has less than 50% support at this stage of a campaign faces trouble because undecided voters usually -- although not always -- tend to end up voting no.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimesblogs.latimes.com ...
LA Slimes, and USC Poll...HELLO!?
Trying not to further destroy the energy sector just might help those stats. :o)
If this vote goes the people’s way, would it be an overstatement to say it would be overturned at court level? I suppose I know the answer, based on history.
Hey if you Californians wants to further consign yourselves to economic suicide go right ahead - no skin off my nose.
Just don’t ask me to bail out your sorry a$$3$ when you go into default.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but Obama and the Dems in congress have already sent billions of your tax dollars here (as well as other states).
That's like staging a maypole dance in the middle of an earthquake.
I wonder what the polls would find if the unemployment figure in Prop 23 was 8% instead of the rarely achieved 5.5%
Bookmark for later.
The best possible outcome for California at this point is bankruptcy.
It is the only way to break the public union contracts and their pension demands.
“California’s global warming law, passed in 2006” I do not think this was an initiative passed by the people of California but a law enacted by the legislature and signed by the Govenor. I could be wrong but I live here and I dont recal voting on it. So I think it is possible that 23 could pass—I hope so
Passage of any proposition in California means nothing. Proposition 8 is proof of that. The will of the people means nothing.
No legislature is bound by the actions of a previous legislature. That’s why elections are held - to change the course of a legislative body. And should a leftist judge insist the contracts by honored, the legislature can impeach and remove him.
But we will never see a legislature in CA that would nullify and rewrite these union contracts, so you’re 100% correct - “The best possible outcome for California at this point is bankruptcy.”
I don’t even know why the voters of California bother to vote for or against these things because if the result is not what the “progressive” powers-that-be deem correct, they simply find some way to void the result.
CA is already in default, and you are already bailing them out.
States cannot go bankrupt. What they promised to pay, they actually have to pay.
Even if everyone in the state goes bankrupt.
Think about it.
“What they promised to pay, they actually have to pay.”
If that were the case, Congress can demand the population to pay whatever it wants, and a future congress cannot nullify that action. Then we are slaves forever.
How is it that one congress can pass omnipotent legislation, while another cannot? You would need to argue that one legislature has plenary power, while another does not. The logic collapses on itself.
If what you stated were true, the only way to rescind bad legislation is through armed revolution overthrowing the government. I don’t think the Founders had that in mind.
If I recall correctly, Reid and Pelosi tried to include a passage in obumacare that said the legislation can’t be rescinded. The rat party itself shot that down.
In addition, you need to argue in favor of the “dead hand doctrine,” which was thoroughly torn up by the courts in the racist covenant deeds in the old south.
” Congress can tackle almost any issue it wants; it is flexible in how it can approach problems (in particular, Congress is not bound by past decisions)”
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/campbell1104.htm
You’re up. Defend your premise.
Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code (Federal) forbids it.
As the law currently stands, States cannot go bankrupt.
“As the law currently stands, States cannot go bankrupt.”
That may be true, but the congress has the power to rewrite or nullify Chapter 12. Different legislatures have rewritten or added various clauses to the bankruptcy law over the years, which proves my point that no congress is bound by the actions of a previous congress.
And it’s time for a congress to exercise its legislative power and rescind hundreds of illegal laws passed by liberals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.