2012 Constitutional Amendments

I've read lots if the information provided on these but the language always confuses me. Please provide input. y/n
Voter Checklist – November 6, 2012
1. Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly
2. Strict Scrutiny Review for Gun Laws
3. Earlier Notice of Public Retirement Bills
4. Homestead Exemption for Veterans’ Spouses
5. Forfeiture of Public Retirement Benefits
6. Property Tax Exemption Authority for New Iberia
7. Membership of Certain Boards and Commissions
8. Non-Manufacturing Tax Exemption Program
9. More Notice for Crime Prevention District Bills

Voter Checklist – Local Option Vote
1. Term Limits for Local School Board Members
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Louisiana_2012_ballot_measures

Vote YES on 2.

vote YES on number 1 toooo

Number 4 looks well-intentioned, also. I'd go "YES" for our Hero's spouses. Could #5 and #7 get more non-specific?

#5 allows a judge to strip retirement benefits to those who are found guilty of doing something illegal while in office, of course it only applies to those elected after 1-1-2013.

I say yes on #5

Not sure about #7

#4, I never vote for an biased tax code, no matter how well intentioned, same with #8.

Brief description on them

http://www.opso.net/from-the-sheriff/2012-louisiana-constitutional-amendments/

kcinnick said:

#4, I never vote for an biased tax code, no matter how well intentioned, same with #8.

Click to expand...

#4 already exist as of 2010.

This amendment is just adding the wording that they left out about the spouse.

4. PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR SPOUSES OF CERTAIN DISABLED VETERANS
PROPOSED CHANGE:
The proposed amendment tweaks the language of the 2010 amendment and says that if the surviving spouse of a deceased disabled veteran occupies and remains the owner of the couple’s home, he or she can claim the higher homestead exemption whether or not the exemption was in effect at the time the veteran died.

Click to expand...

If I read #5 right, it is for the state workers. I don't think elected officials get retirement anymore. Does anyone know more about this?

Hitman said:

#4 already exist as of 2010.

This amendment is just adding the wording that they left out about the spouse.

Click to expand...

Still a biased tax code, just expanding it. I don't support "sin" taxes and I don't support biased tax breaks, no matter how well intentioned.

Want to pay the guys on the ground more, I support that 100% so they don't have to worry about a few hundred dollar a year tax break. Troops on the ground may be the only underpaid federal employees.

dzelenka said:

Vote YES on 2.

Click to expand...

I 100% agree with Dan -- YES on 2!!

Any input on 3, 7 and 9???

btt

Any input on 3, 7 and 9???

I posted this last week if anyone had looked: http://www.businessreport.com/article/20121015/BUSINESSREPORT0201/310129980/-1/businessreport0201

Figured this might need a bump

Everyone says yes on 2 then I read stuff like below and im not sure someone help me understand?

The MAIN problem with the NEW amendment is that the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The first sentence states that the “right …… shall not be infringed.” The second sentence states “any restriction” is allowed.

For a “Right” to “not be infringed” there can be NO “restriction” placed on it whatsoever. NONE. Privileges can have restrictions placed on them. “Rights”, as defined in the Declaration of Independence of 1776 cannot be “restricted” in any manner, as they are “unalienable,” which means not ‘alienable’….not able to be taken away, transferred or RESTRICTED…!!

The second problem with the amendment as written is that the undetermined “restrictions” which should NOT be in the amendment at all, “shall be subject to strict scrutiny” by persons or groups who are not named in the amendment. That could be anyone. It could be any public official, military commander or court.

That leads to another huge problem – “Strict SCRUTINY” by whom?

We cannot assume it means ‘court’ at all, since the word “COURT” does NOT appear in the Amendment… BUT it will appear on the ballot. Please notice that the ballot and Bill wording does NOT appear in the Amendment!

The “strict scrutiny” could be made by the City, Parish, District, State officials, or their courts, or the Supreme Court. The word ‘COURT’ might even be the World Court at the Hague, Netherlands. How many small town Louisianans will travel to The Hague, Netherlands to defend their Rights to own a firearm?
SB 303 makes four (4) references to the “Courts” but you need to ask your representative which “Court” hears the case, how that “Court” gets involved, what are the guidelines used by those “Courts” for strict “Scrutiny” and how does wording of “The Bill” apply to the Amendment when the Amendment does not call for any use of a Court system.

The wording of the Amendment simply does NOT address the Court system as the Bill does. The amendment certainly should be specific before it is implemented by our vote to approve this vaguely worded change to the Louisiana Constitution.

Actually, the second sentence in the amendment should be COMPLETELY REMOVED to be considered at all..!!

And no one will be able to infringe on it, this time, unless they con prove it is constitutional to infringe on it under the process of strict scrutiny, rather than just letting them get away with it at-will, basically. If it's declared that the right cannot be infringed, than I guess it's safe to say that they won't be able to restrict it, now will they?

The reason you have to have the second statement is because people /will/ try to pass restrictions on it, so you have to subject it to the highest level of scrutiny before allowing it to pass - proving it's Constitutionality. The first statement protects us, then.

"Strict Scrutiny" is a particular legal term in this instance, not just the generic words that Webster or Wiktionary will tell you. Context is important here.

^ What he said. It protects us from restrictions, because right now restrictions can be passed if a majority of legislators think it's reasonable!!!!!

I am voting NO on 1,3, and 8.