PDA

View Full Version : Ballot to stop ammendments?


mike_c70
08-08-2012, 9:08 PM
I was wondering if a ballot can be initiated that would prevent bills to be ammended into something completely different or even ammended at all? SB124 started as an agriculture bill. SB249 started as something different than its current state. Can't we the people but a ballot in polls that limits amendments or even eliminate them and whatnot? Thinking out loud here.

DrDavid
08-08-2012, 9:22 PM
I think that's an excellent idea.. One bill, one issue. And, changing the issues in a bill requires a total re-do of the vote.

dustoff31
08-08-2012, 9:24 PM
I don't know, but I doubt it. It wouldn't really matter anyway. Amendments are simply shortcuts in the process. If they really wanted to change something and couldn't use the amendment process they would just write a new law saying whatever they wanted it to say and then repeal the old one.

This was at least introduced at the federal level, but I don't believe it passed.

JeremyKX
08-08-2012, 9:25 PM
There are sometimes positive amendments to bills so I would have to disagree.

NotEnufGarage
08-08-2012, 9:31 PM
I was wondering if a ballot can be initiated that would prevent bills to be ammended into something completely different or even ammended at all? SB124 started as an agriculture bill. SB249 started as something different than its current state. Can't we the people but a ballot in polls that limits amendments or even eliminate them and whatnot? Thinking out loud here.

It costs about % million dollars go gather signatures to qualify a ballot measure and more to get hit past. Got that?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

NotEnufGarage
08-08-2012, 9:33 PM
%=5
Go=to


Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

MontClaire
08-08-2012, 9:35 PM
How about introducing the bill to lift AW ban in ca?

DrDavid
08-08-2012, 9:46 PM
Prop measure to make the gun rights part of the state constitution?

Librarian
08-08-2012, 10:00 PM
Back to the topic ...

'Gut and Amend' has been complained about from both sides of the aisle for many years. Run a Google search for "California gut and amend" ...

It's part of the rules of the Legislature; it's very likely untouchable.

I'll tell you one that just came to me today -- many of us have recently or in the past gotten approximately 'you are not my constituent, I do not have to talk to you' responses from emails and letters.

That's got to change.

The actions taken by the Legislature affect every resident of California, not just citizens, or voters, or voters in a particular district.

Legislators should not be permitted to pick and choose from whom to accept input on matters of state law. They'll continue to place weight on the input they like, but they really need to accept and tally input from any Californian who can spare a piece of his or her mind.

LoneYote
08-08-2012, 10:07 PM
Legislators should not be permitted to pick and choose from whom to accept input on matters of state law. They'll continue to place weight on the input they like, but they really need to accept and tally input from any Californian who can spare a piece of his or her mind.

We know why it is they do this... Can you really force someone to pay attention? Although it would be nice to say "Hey you have to listen to me too" the simple fact is that they would not. I mean honestly, I get as little response from MY reps as from all the others.

DeanW66
08-09-2012, 11:44 PM
I'll tell you one that just came to me today -- many of us have recently or in the past gotten approximately 'you are not my constituent, I do not have to talk to you' responses from emails and letters.

That's got to change.

The actions taken by the Legislature affect every resident of California, not just citizens, or voters, or voters in a particular district.

Legislators should not be permitted to pick and choose from whom to accept input on matters of state law. They'll continue to place weight on the input they like, but they really need to accept and tally input from any Californian who can spare a piece of his or her mind.

QFMFT!*


*=I learned a new acronym just a few minutes ago and found this very apropos place to use it. Thanks Peter.Steele!

Wherryj
08-10-2012, 8:10 AM
I want to push for a ballot permanetly exempting a politician from future service if a bill they wrote/sponsored is found unconstitutional. After all, serving in politics is a privilege, NOT a RIGHT.

Wherryj
08-10-2012, 8:11 AM
Back to the topic ...

'Gut and Amend' has been complained about from both sides of the aisle for many years. Run a Google search for "California gut and amend" ...

It's part of the rules of the Legislature; it's very likely untouchable.

I'll tell you one that just came to me today -- many of us have recently or in the past gotten approximately 'you are not my constituent, I do not have to talk to you' responses from emails and letters.

That's got to change.

The actions taken by the Legislature affect every resident of California, not just citizens, or voters, or voters in a particular district.

Legislators should not be permitted to pick and choose from whom to accept input on matters of state law. They'll continue to place weight on the input they like, but they really need to accept and tally input from any Californian who can spare a piece of his or her mind.

I love the way you think. You don't have any political aspirations, do you? I'd vote for a Hoffman/Librarian ticket for President.

DrjonesUSA
08-10-2012, 9:08 AM
I was wondering if a ballot can be initiated that would prevent bills to be ammended into something completely different or even ammended at all? SB124 started as an agriculture bill. SB249 started as something different than its current state. Can't we the people but a ballot in polls that limits amendments or even eliminate them and whatnot? Thinking out loud here.


This has DEFINITELY crossed my mind & I think I'd very likely support it. Would need to think it through more, learn more of the possible pros/cons by more legal-minded folks than me.

That said, my understanding is that there's a deadline by which all bills have to be submitted for the legislative term. So these idiots cram any garbage they want as pure placeholder bills and then take the rest of the term to dream up all sorts of ways to further tax us and oh....say....terrorize innocent, law-abiding gun owners.

At which point they do the infamous gut & amend.

Sorry charlie, if your idea hadn't struck you as crucial at the beginning of the term, wait til next year. :rolleyes:

It just seems so shady.....

Not sure if the process is largely the same at the federal level or not, but if so, that also needs to be addressed.

Additionally, I lean towards abolishing the practice of adding amendments/riders to bills that are 100% unrelated to the primary bill; perfect example is the magazine ban that was attached to the cybersecurity bill.

gixxnrocket
08-10-2012, 9:09 AM
Back to the topic ...

'Gut and Amend' has been complained about from both sides of the aisle for many years. Run a Google search for "California gut and amend" ...

It's part of the rules of the Legislature; it's very likely untouchable.

I'll tell you one that just came to me today -- many of us have recently or in the past gotten approximately 'you are not my constituent, I do not have to talk to you' responses from emails and letters.

That's got to change.

The actions taken by the Legislature affect every resident of California, not just citizens, or voters, or voters in a particular district.

Legislators should not be permitted to pick and choose from whom to accept input on matters of state law. They'll continue to place weight on the input they like, but they really need to accept and tally input from any Californian who can spare a piece of his or her mind.

It is flustrating to say the least that:
1. Legislation may be tailored to pass each voting party along the legislative process only to morph into something completely different by the time the senate or governor signs it. IMO amendments should pass muster at every level no matter how minor the change.
2. This is the suposedly the people's government. (Of, By, and For the people... and all that jazz) There shouldn't be such difficulty and resistance in reigning in government's power.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." -Lord Acton (letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887)
"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" -William Pitt the Elder (speech to the UK House of Lords 1770)

On a side note, could we create a Ballot initiative to create a part time Legislature. There's no reason to dream up new laws year round. The Senate should function for no more than 3 months per year or bi-anually and balance the state budget within that time. After, which time legislators go back to their previous occupation. Less there is a REAL crisis.

Lone_Gunman
08-10-2012, 9:33 AM
We need to do something. I was trying to figure out what Yee and his ilk hold dear, so that every time they attack us we could do the same. The problem is, it seems the only thing they care about is political power, and their anti gun stances just help them gain more.

gixxnrocket
08-10-2012, 1:17 PM
Hey Librarian,
I'm unclear on California's initiative process it says I need 25 or more signatures from electors. As in of the Electoral College?

Unfortunatly, the initiative measure must qualify at least 131 days prior to the next statewide election. With upto 150 days to collect signatures (5% or 1,884,596 signatures)

Oh my! Know anyone with deep deep pockets I can talk to? I'm sure I can scrape together money for the documentation fees but there's no way in hell I can afford Legal council, signature gatherers, and Media advertising / combating opposing media campaigns.

I guess I'd need to discuss with a legal team wether "closing the Amendment loop-hole" or mandating a part time state Legislature is passable and how to draft it.
It's not likely to happen this election cycle, but I'm tired of cheering from the sidelines! Yee is the straw that broke the camel's back for me.

Johnnyfres
08-10-2012, 1:21 PM
This a loophole in the law just like they say the bullet button is a loophole. They are no going to let us remove that loophole.

Hypocrites? I think so.