Answer for: What Do You Think About Initiative 2 Being Amended Despite Public Opposition?
#5 How about "NO PRIORITY" instead of low priority
by newt 1 year ago
| 
7 Comments
It still is "WE the people" not "We the government". They seem to think that we are all imbiciles. We seem to not be able to read what we vote on or can't 'cypher' past the third grade. We vote, we pass initiatives, we have them changed to fit the political aspirations of others. The State of Montana is still, and will remain in the early 20th century as long as we have officials pronouncing their own political agendas.
Related Answers
Grupies who voted on this answer also voted on:- VOTE THEM OUT!
- I Have Lost All Faith In Missoula County Government
- Seeking Legal Action Against County Commissioners
- I think it's time to go Supreme on their asses.
- Commissioners' Meeting every Wednesday at 1:30
Comments |
Leave a comment
I thought that this should have been how the initiative should have been written in the first place Newt.
If you mean No priority instead of low priority then I agree. These folks who write the initiatives should research what they are going topresent to us before placing it on the ballot. The founding fathers did not write the constituion over night. It was years later that they could all decide the best format.
Yeah, I meant "no priority" instead of low priority. It's a distinct possibility that the initiative was written as it was to avoid some existing conflicts with statute or something, but I've always imagined it was just to create the soft-sell appeal. It's funny that you mention the constitution, because our constitution might be the greatest example of a document that was deftly crafted to avoid trouble-causing ambiguity -- yet allow the document to age gracefully.
Much like Mr. Van Valkenburg's poor choice of verbiage at the hearing, when the devil's in the details, writing means a lot.
State law trumps county (and city), so it's not possible in Montana to decriminalize/legalize on a local level. It'd have to be state-wide.
The initiative expresses recommendations, instead of requiring low priority, because elected officials are granted discretion to carry out their duties in the manner they believe appropriate -- theory being if they carry out their duties in a way contrary to voters' will, they will not be re-elected.
Thanks for the clarification, I was assuming this to be the case. I dunno, I think Montana's got just enough of what a friend coined as a "fuck you" streak (as opposed to what's often incorrectly dubbed Libertarian) to pass a statewide decriminalization initiative.
I should note that when I talk of the state's f-you streak, I say this in the most positive way. As in, "Fuck you, who are you to dictate what I do in privacy at no risk to others."
"Montana - The Fuck You State." I love it. And may it ever be so.