Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Egoboy, Jun 21, 2019.
I'm pretty sure you comprehend English... no fair pretending not to now... the jig is up...
Your post proved my claim. Why do you persist?
Our country was founded upon the principle that there are checks and balances to ensure the minority is free from tyranny by the majority. Is the Bill of Rights of our constitiution invalid because the majority don't like it? Of course not. The quorum law in Oregon is just one such check and balance to ensure the majority does not do reckless harm and wanton destruction to the people and the way of life of the minority. Are you making the argument that might always makes right?
Politics is ugly, isn't it? Are you taking the position that your party is any better?
You mean the same false emergency that AOC is claiming are concentration camps? That same false emergency?
Because you are wrong... my post said the referendum process is somewhat harder under the emergency clause, not that it makes it "immune from" the referendum process...
Two (2) different things...
1. I am a member of no party, but like Bernie and Angus King, I sorta caucus with the Democrats.
2. I was informed of 2 similar (not exact, but similar) incidents in the past (2003 - Texas and 2011- Wisconsin) where Democrats pulled the same ****, and I denounced those when I read about them. To stay in the current, I saw several Alabama State Dems in there fighting the good fight for women's choice rights last month... Better to stay and fight than cut and run, IMHO....
I was called a few names for not knowing about the Wisconsin incident from 8 years ago, but that was long before I was politically "woke"....
Still no end in sight today, from what I read...
"The emergency clause also makes fighting the policy tougher for opponents. It means they can’t use the state’s referendum process to refer the cap-and-trade law to voters in the November 2020 election, though they’d still have another, more difficult option open to them. Republicans have railed against this fact."
Read your source.
"Contrary to that rhetoric, the emergency clause doesn’t preempt voters from weighing in — it just makes things harder. Under state law, opponents could still seek to upend the law via an initiative petition asking voters to throw it out. That would allow opponents to craft the text of their initiative, but would require them to collect more than 35,000 additional valid signatures compared to the referendum process."
Yes, two different things.
Joe Biden isn't a serial groper, he's an undocumented massage therapist
The article was wrong. The emergency status DOES prevent the bill from being reverse:
This is a direct quote from Oregon's process manual.
Here in Oregon, we have 2 separate processes.....the Referendum Process and the Initiative Process. In order for the Oregon voters to reject this law, the Initiative Process would need to be used, as the Referendum process can not be used on an Emergency Act. Our Initiative Process can only propose new laws, change existing laws, or to change our Constitution.....and it can only address ONE item topic per initiative. Once this law is passed, we (Oregon voters) can change it, but we can not reject it. It will be law. It might be gutted through changes, but it will still be law.
The Initiative Process in Oregon is also much more complicated to get items on the ballot. If every "T" is not crossed and every "I" is not dotted, the election board WILL reject the Initiative. It is also harder to get voter approval to change existing laws than it is to flat out reject a law. The Democrats in our State legislation know all of these hurdles and that is the exact reason why they declared it as an Emergency Act. There is no emergency and the games the Democrats are playing are done purposely so that the voters will not have a say in the matter. Oregon is being ran by dictators.
Any bill can be overturned if you get the majority back.
We agree on the one guy. I don't think any of them would be punished, just brought back to do their jobs. From what I understand, the police would ask them to come back, no force.
Your scenario is total fiction. Give one example of how that would happen.
They are doing their job. They are acting on behalf of the districts they represent by using the only means left available because the Democrats are gaming the system to prevent Oregon voters from having any say on the issue. The Democrats have labeled this measure as an Emergency Act....even though there is no emergency. That prevents the measure from being forced to be presented to the voters as a ballot measure .
So, which party would you support? A party that want to pass a controversial bill by using a political method to prevent voters from voting on the issue.....or a party that feels the bill is so controversial that they believe the voters should have a direct say on the issue.
You want to know how a 22 cent/gallon gas tax going up to $3 per gallon over 20 years will put businesses out of work?
You're kidding, right?
This has been the plan for decades.
Establishment-types have been doing this stuff, for decades.
The plan has always been to lift up third-world countries, while dragging us down. It's, like, a 40 year old strategy. The politicians make it unaffordable to produce in the USA, so businesses move to third-world countries.
It's been happening for decades, fer crissake. Don't tell me that you haven't noticed. One of the things, that make third-world production so cheap, is that they don't care about pollution.
Our State legislation (Oregon - Democrat controled) is well know for going against the will of the voters.
In 2015, a law was forced through our Congress that would automatically register people to vote when they obtain a Driver's Licenses or renew their driver's license (unless they opt-out within 21 days). This law was forced through State Congress as an "Emergency Act" because polling suggested that the voters would soundly defeat the law. (Emergency Acts prevent it from being put to the voters as a ballot measure) There was great concern that people in the country illegally would be registered. We were insured that would not be the case because it is required to show proof of citizenship or legal status upon obtaining a Driver's License.
In 2016, we voted on a ballot measure that would allow non-citizens to obtain Driver's Licenses in Oregon. This measure was defeated very soundly by the Oregon voters (around 65%-35% iirc).
Earlier this month, our State House (ignoring the wishes of the voters) passed a bill that would remove the requirement of providing proof of legal citizenship and legal State residency. Guess what....it was passed as an "Emergency Act" which would prevent voters from voting on the issue again.
This bill makes no changes to the motor-voter portion of our laws with the exception that to state that it is the DVM is to determine the means as to whether a person qualifies under the National Voters Act of 1993. Meaning, without proper assurances in place, people in the country illegally could be registered to vote in Oregon if this law passes.
p.s. In Oregon, we vote-by-mail, so there is NO proof of citizenship at the time we submit our ballots.
It's only controversial to one side. Having said that, I'm on the Dems side on this because it addresses climate change. The other point I would like to make goes to politics here in SD. The public voted on a transparency measure that passed by a large margin and the legislature more or less said.....no, I don't think so,so in that and other instances what the public wants doesn't mean squat.
No, they are not doing their job. If they were they go and vote...they will lose but if they believe they are in the right then you pound that point come election time.
Given that the point is to find other sources of energy if we do come up with something then the tax doesn't mean anything. Like smoking. They can tax the hell out of it.....doesn't matter to me. Same thing.
I'm sorry, I missed your example in that word salad you posted.
What do you mean example? Are you trying to claim that government hasn't over-burdened industry with all manner of regulations, thus forcing businesses to move to countries without such limitations?
So, are you saying that you have no issue with our politicians playing "politics" even if it is not what "The People" want.....especially if it is over an issue that you support? Not very democratic minded of you. In fact, it seems kind of Unitarian or even Oligarchy.
Oregon has a process where voters CAN decide to vote on an issue. The Emergency Act Clause was put into place so that true emergencies can be addressed quickly without a lengthy time issue getting something passed into law. Our Democrats are abusing that system to pass non-emergency issues under the Emergency Act for the sole purpose of not letting us voters vote on it.
Do you really think this is ok? Or is it only ok when Democrats do it? For some reason, I suspect you would be coming unglued when (R)s play politics, but are completely fine when (D) are playing it.
No, here in Oregon, this bill is very controversial on both sides of the political aisle.....though you are right that there are many Democrats that support it, even though they have not read it or really understand what is in it. They are for it just because our State Democrats are for it and our State Republicans are against it.
When most of the original environmental laws were passed in Oregon, Republicans were in charge. At the time polluters kept insisting that it would be bad for business. Yet Republican governor, Tom McCall insisted that they had it backwards, that companies that wanted to do business in Oregon, had to do it our way. Washington is similar. In fact Jay Inslee is basing his presidential bid on his argument that environmental protections have been what makes the Pacific Northwest so profitable.
The idea that this bill would be the end of the Democratic Party in Oregon is rather laughable. It is just a rehashing of conservatives insisting that environmental laws in Oregon hurt loggers. Yet Oregon is the country's top lumber producer and the largest producer of Christmas Trees.
However, when one gets an ID in Oregon one needs to show proof of citizenship, or legal status. One's voter registration is tied to one's ID (or drivers license).
I disagree with you that voters would have rejected the DMV voter registration bill. After all it was by a voter initiated referendum that gave us our mail-in voting system.
Mostly it just applies to smoke stack industries, with 25,000 metric tons per year of carbon release or more. An average over the road truck produces about 20 metric tons per year. I think that this is just another case of conservatives being led down a less than honest road.
Separate names with a comma.