| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| State to citizens: No more petitions for you |
| 2010-08-02 |
| Somehow seedy politicians seemed appropriate, given it's Massachusetts and all. My favorite quote from Kris Mineau kind of sums it up. "The ruling elite don't believe we're smart enough to decide anything for ourselves.." An amendment of the Massachusetts Constitution proposed by Democrats could virtually put an end to citizen-initiated referenda in the state. The amendment, proposed jointly by state Rep. Byron Rushing in the House and by state Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem in the Senate, would exclude any citizen petition that deals with issues concerning a person's right to "the enjoyment of life, liberty and property, according to standing laws." |
| Posted by:Thuse Ebbeack3041 |
| #16 The only way we ever get any decent laws in California is by statewide ballot propositions that are submitted to the voters for approval At least until they are invalidated by left wing judges. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2010-08-02 18:00 |
| #15 This democracy thing is so inconvenient for achieving the progressive agenda. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2010-08-02 17:58 |
| #14 Time to get Howie Carr on the case... |
| Posted by: HeavyG 2010-08-02 17:05 |
| #13 #10 The only way we ever get any decent laws in California is by statewide ballot propositions that are submitted to the voters for approval. Often these propositions get circumvented or stopped by the public unions despite being the will of the people in California. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-08-02 16:58 |
| #12 I'm loading my musket. They're making their move, going for broke. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2010-08-02 16:19 |
| #11 Why do I keep getting the sinking feeling that we are one election away from a possible dictatorship state? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2010-08-02 12:04 |
| #10 The only way we ever get any decent laws in California is by statewide ballot propositions that are submitted to the voters for approval. To get on the ballot the sponsors have to submit petitions that have been signed by a sufficient number of registered voters. Without this mechanism we would be completely at the mercy of the crooked morons in Sacramento. I've said it before, I'd be willing to actually dissolve the legislature altogether. Maybe you think this makes me a crackpot but our experience in California shows that the legislature really is more trouble than it's worth. Our budget was due on June 15 and they still haven't acted. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2010-08-02 11:52 |
| #9 The whole state is filled with idiots. |
| Posted by: newc 2010-08-02 11:40 |
| #8 Not long ago Mass passed (or debated) a bill that would send all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Hearing about this on the news it sounded very much like it was taking the voters of Mass voice out of the picture entirely. If Mass voted 100% for Obama but Palin got the popular vote nationally Mass electoral votes would go to Palin. Perhaps I got it wrong, or the news got it wrong, but either way it sounded to me as if the Mass legislature was filled with fools. This latest convinces me that it is. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2010-08-02 10:48 |
| #7 This is what happens with a single party State or nation. There are 40 senatorial districts in Massachusetts, named for the counties in which they are located. The current composition of the Senate is 34 Democrats, 4 Republicans, with 2 vacancies. The current composition of the House is 144 Democrats and 16 Republicans. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-08-02 10:19 |
| #6 Rushing and Creem should and do not serve the people of Massachusetts. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-08-02 10:07 |
| #5 "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a part of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. What a sorry state. Rushing and Creem should do not serve the State of Massachusetts if they believe the above to be not relevant to the freedoms of the people of Massachusetts. I thought the First Amendment (Bill of Rights) insured that the amendment prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. These people should be out if they don't understand this! |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2010-08-02 10:06 |
| #4 From the state that gave us Samuel Adams (the man, not the beer) - what a decline. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2010-08-02 08:18 |
| #3 Rushing's one of the local kooks up here, a small time Charlie Rangel. Because of his idiot constituents, the only way he'll leave that seat is in a box. Creem's out of the Brookline-Newton-Wellesley axis that gave you Barney Frank. This hasn't hit the Globe or the Herald yet. I look forward to the backpedaling when it does. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2010-08-02 01:12 |
| #2 Assuming that quaint little document has any meaning to the Ruling Class nowdays. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-08-02 00:38 |
| #1 Amendment I. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If the lawyers can find the "right to abortion" or the "right to privacy" in that sentence, then surely the people's right to petition for a change in state law should be obvious. |
| Posted by: GK 2010-08-02 00:22 |