Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Did YOU Know ?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    S E Michgan all mine, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post



    For Your Reading
    }


    g­uest

    e­ditorial



    Commentaries from other newspapers do not necessarily reflect the views of The Monroe Evening News’ editorial board.

    Take partisanship out of elections?



    FROM THE DAILY PRESS & ARGUS


    Voters in November will decide if Michigan will rewrite the state constitution. Some argue that a new constitutional convention is an unnecessary step when changes can be more surgically made by individual amendment.

    But that may be the wrong debate. If the constitution is to be changed — either by a sweep­ing rewrite or one amendment at a time — the far more important question is this: Will the change significantly benefit the way our state operates?

    In that vein, we offer a signifi­cant change: Why not eliminate the bipartisan extremism by making all elections non-partisan?

    That could be the type of major change that could change for the better the way that our state is governed.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to some constitutional amendments, support is generated for changes that make the voter feel better, but which don’t accomplish much.

    That was the case with term limits. Surely it felt good to some to throw the rascals out. But what good has it accomplished?

    Lawmakers responded to shorter terms by dramatically increasing their pay and giving themselves health-care benefits that begin at age 55 even if they only served for six years. Almost all say that they are against that perk, but it still hasn’t been changed. When and if it is changed, you can bet that the benefit will stay intact for current lawmakers.

    This isn’t to argue that Lansing got worse because of term lim­its. But it didn’t get any better, as evidenced by the inept budget deliberations.

    At least part of the problem in Lansing is that loyalty to political parties appears to trump service to constituents. Because of the way districts are drawn, many lawmak­ers come from predominantly Republican or Democratic areas.

    That means that the primary elec­tion with lower turnout and more partisan voters — tends to decide the November results. Livingston County is a prime example. The legislative candidate who wins the Republican primary in August is virtually assured of election in December. ...

    Party loyalty is fine, but it stands to reason that blind straight-party voting sometimes overshadows the credentials of candidates.

    The same is true at the township level where party affiliation usu­ally carries the day. One can only wonder if the turmoil in Hamburg Township could have been avoided if voters in the 2008 election for clerk chose among candidates without a party tag after their name.

    Judges, school boards and some city councils are elected on non­partisan ballots. Taking the parti­sanship out of other elections in the state could be beneficial.

    It’s hard to imagine that it could be worse than what we now see — a bitter tug-of-war in which only those who buy into party dogma have a place at the table. We need elected officials who are more be­holden to their constituents than to their state political party.











    Powered by TECNAVIA


    ">Copyright 2010 Monroe Publishing Co. 03/15/2010


    }

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,544

    Post imported post

    SCOTUS ruling on McDonald v Chicago will happen before the November vote.

  3. #3
    Guest

    Post imported post

    A constitutional convention has been discussed for several months now. This could be the single most detrimental activity to our rights to be voted on.

    If the electorate approves a constitutional convention, sweeping changes could be made without approval by the electorate.

    Opposition to a constitutional convention should be paramount in the platform of any right activist group.

    Open carry could be eliminated without having to "shop sponsors" for legislation.

    The last constitutional convention was in 1963. At that one our unorganized militia was abolished from the constitution. It's that easy.

  4. #4
    Guest

    Post imported post

    zigziggityzoo wrote:
    SCOTUS ruling on McDonald v Chicago will happen before the November vote.
    Since the applicability of the 2A being an individual right is not being considered, I don't expect a ruling that prohibits any state regulation. I rather expect an "acceptable" level of regulation will be allowed.

    In that case, a constitutional convention resulting in the prohibition of open carry would not violate the SCOTUS ruling that I anticipate.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    .
    Last edited by T Vance; 09-20-2010 at 12:51 PM.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    576

    Post imported post

    interesting !!

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Not on this website, USA
    Posts
    2,482

    Post imported post

    .
    Last edited by T Vance; 09-20-2010 at 12:51 PM.

  8. #8
    Guest

    Post imported post

    T Vance wrote:
    Why does something important like this get less responses than something that ruffles feathers like "dress code"?
    Because it's too hard to read and comprehend.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756

    Post imported post

    CV67PAT wrote:
    Since the applicability of the 2A being an individual right is not being considered, I don't expect a ruling that prohibits any state regulation. I rather expect an "acceptable" level of regulation will be allowed.

    In that case, a constitutional convention resulting in the prohibition of open carry would not violate the SCOTUS ruling that I anticipate.
    Yes, this is what I expect (and fear) also. I expect the Supreme Court ruling to affirm the individual's "right" to keep and bear arms... and allow the States to regulate supposedly "reasonable restrictions" (infringements) upon said "right".

    The end result will be we will have the "right" but exercising that "right" will be a controlled "privilege".
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,416

    Post imported post

    Constitutional convention is never something I look forward to.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •