What's on your ballot? Interpret these for me, and tell me why we're still fighting the same battles

[Baitball Blogger]

Florida

No. 6
Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions; Construction of Abortion Rights: This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest.

This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion that those contained in the United States Constitution. With respect to abortion, this proposed amendment overrules court decisions which conclude that the right of privacy under Article 1, Section 23 of the State Constitution is broader in scope that that of the United States Constitution.

And:

No. 8

Constitutional Amendment Article 1, Section 3

Religious Freedom

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in the aid of any sectarian institution.


That last one looks like it's trying to make it open season for government funds to support churches and questionable civic organizations, like the Rotary Club, which are used in Florida to establish oligarchies.

[FLyellowdog]

1. Because we live in Florida.

Voted "No" on both today.

[Baitball Blogger]

2. Do you have a link to explain, sensibly what the rest will accomplish?

No. 4 & 5 Look liked a two page synopsis.

[FLyellowdog]

3. Try this...

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_2012_ballot_measures

[Baitball Blogger]

4. Amendment 1 looks like it's trying to override Obamacare?

Is that a correct interpretation?

[FLyellowdog]

5. That's what I took from it. Another link....

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Health_Care,_Amendment_1_(2012)

[Connie_Corleone]

6. Fortunately in Ohio, we don't have those issues on the ballot this year.

[hay rick]

7. Vote no on all.

Consider the source- they all originated in the Republican-controlled legislature. More toxic amendments- No. 1 attempts to circumvent the Affordable Care Act's mandate and No. 5 would give the legislature the right to overturn court decisions by a simple majority vote. League of Women Voters has been robo-calling urging rejection of all the amendments.

Also, vote yes to retain the justices- they are all Democrats that the Republicans are trying to remove.

I've only been in Florida for 10 months, but I have already figured out that it is the cesspool of our democracy.

[Baitball Blogger]

8. No. 5 looks like a violation of the checks and balances.

[Baitball Blogger]

9. As for the vote no on all,

I was leaning in that favor, but was thinking about voting yes to no. 2 to give disabled veterans a break on Homestead property. Or, is that too open ended?

[hay rick]

10. It's an expansion of existing law.

Florida law allows all veterans to claim an exemption. It also provides an exemption for all disabled people. There is an additional exemption for disabled veterans who were Florida residents when they entered the military. This amendment would extend that exemption to disabled veterans who were not Florida residents when they served in the military.

Expected cost: about $14,000,000 a year. This is probably the best of a bad lot. I'm still voting against them all, if only to discourage our worthless legislature from frivolously cluttering up the ballot.

[Baitball Blogger]

11. I'll let my husband's vote void mine. LOL!

[shraby]

12. A state law cannot supersede the U.S. Constitution..and that looks like what this

is trying to do.

[Baitball Blogger]

13. They have been superseding Federal law for a long time around here.

Think about it. Who is going to make a federal issue of the kind of violations that local government is involved with all the time? The people who are harmed by this the most don't have the money to pay for an out of town lawyer who is honest and has no conflicts of interest.

[shraby]

14. I'm not talking about Federal law, I'm talking about the Constitution.

[Baitball Blogger]

15. And your point is?

Why do you think the Republicans wanted to get rid of the Fourteenth Amendment? Equal Protection Under the Law and Due Process. Does not exist in local government functions, except for those who have the $$ to threaten a lawyer.

[Odin2005]

16. There is a gay marriage ban on the ballot here in MN.

The Puke-controlled legislature approved it and the governor has no say on constitutional amendments.