In 2002 there was a proposed amendment regarding the penning and treatment of pregnant pigs. And it passed. Why the concerned parties couldn’t get the legislature to take care of it, I don’t know.
Then again, our legislature is only in session for 60 days a year, so maybe they have more important things to take care of besides pregnant pigs.
I’m sorry to beat a dead horse, but I’m still pretty fuzzy on Amendment 1 with the illegal aliens. What I think y’all are telling me is: Currently, the Florida Legislature can enact legislation to prevent discrimination against furriners with respect to property ownership. Voting no means that the Legislature would no longer have the power to prevent discrimination against furriners. Voting yes would mean that the Legislature would still have the power to enact legislation, should they so choose, which prevents discrimination against furriners.
Now, what have I conflated or gotten backwards or completely misunderstood? I’m sorry to say, the explanations so far have been a little circular. There’s so many freaking double negatives in the amendment language, I’m getting all discombobulated. I’m trying to figure out why it might be in my best interests to tie the hands of my own legislation if they want to protect some underclass from being discriminated against.
Seems like I’d want my state to be able to make a law preventing discrimination… (Assuming I have no problem with furriners buying up houses built upon sand.)
The “discrimination” angle is from the Gainesville Sun’s interpretation. I think they’re the ones who’ve got it wrong. The proposed amendment says it will take away the Legislature’s power to “regulate or prohibit the ownership, inheritance, disposition, and possession of real property by aliens ineligible for citizenship”. Nothing about limiting discrimination by others. If the amendment passes, the Florida Constitution will no longer give the Legislature the power to enact strictures on the property rights of foreigners.
Which, according to a post above, shouldn’t really matter all that much because they haven’t enacted any strictures to date? Is that right?
Why would or wouldn’t the legislature want to enact strictures?
I don’t know. Freddy the Pig’s explanation seems pretty good to me.
Not only does this make my head hurt, it makes me glad I’m no longer a resident of Florida. I don’t understand why they seem to think they have to make everything a constitutional amendment. Is there no other way to enact a law in the Sunshine State??? :rolleyes:
Why the heck are 3-8 being proposed as constitutional amendments, rather than regular old laws? While I’d be in favour of enacting a few of the policies, I don’t see any reason to have that sort of detail embedded in a constitution. I’d personally be voting against the lot of them.
Changing the state constitution has become the standard way of getting things done in Florida. It’s one of the easier ways for the citizenry at large to force a vote on a particular issue. The legislature presumably has the power to enact the provisions of #3-8, but since they haven’t, the amendments are intended to force them to do so.
Yeah, it’s a kooky system.
(Ever have deja vu?)
Problem is, that generally speaking, a constitution trumps a law. If the constitution currently states that (for example) the Legislature cannot authorize counties to levy a local option sales tax etc. (Amendment 6), then the only thing that will overcome that is a constitutional amendment. Passing a law to address this opens the door for a constitutional challenge, which won’t stand up to the constitution. Which means you’re back where you were before.
I’ve never read Florida’s constitution, but I’d assume that these amendments address provisions that are somewhere in there.
We have one this year that is about the cage space of farm animals or something. (We’ve also got a gay marriage amendment, too).
#5 is utterly incomprehensible as written, but seems to be something I’d actually vote for. Keeps businesses dependent on being on the waterfront from being taxed out of existence just because their land would be worth double if someone built a mansion on it instead. Like a provision I remember there being in NJ law that helped friends of mine. Her family owned a sheep farm (IIRC since the mid 18th century) on land worth $16M if they sold it to developers, which they’d have had to do without special agricultural tax rates. Property taxes on $16m would have bankrupted them.
For more information, you can look at website for the local chapter of the League of Women Voters. There’s a pdf document posted there that explains each amendment, lists organizations that support or oppose it (if any), lists pros and cons of the amendment, and states the LWV’s stance on the issue.
And if you pass a law, it is subject to review by courts who may say that your law is unconstitutional. If you put it in the constitution, then the courts have nothing to review as a part of the constitution can’t be unconstitutional.
Plus, it now takes 60% of the vote to amend the constitution. The amendment passed two years ago that made this change passed with 54% of the vote. 
*scratches head
Yeah it is a crazy system here. I really don’t like folks messing w/the constitution and I never sign a petition for constitutional amendments based on the fact of what they are. I tell the people that when they ask me to sign. Generally as a rule, I vote NO for amendments unless they are easy to figure out and obvious that they’ll help the majority of the general public.
Just to be clear, the amendment doesn’t make local government do so, it just permits them to do so with voter approval. I have no idea why they would need a specific provision in the state constitution permitting them to do so. Maybe some other section has been interpreted as forbidding them from using property tax dollars for funding JCs.