Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Previous Bills' started by Malum Prohibitum, Oct 27, 2006.
Link: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/printe ... 1021a.html
Text of the measures, with the League of Women Voters comments:
http://safeashouses.blogspot.com/2006/1 ... -fall.html
1-- I agree with the AJC's and League of Women Voter's comments on the "Hunting and Fishing Rights" -- it's a non issue. Who is talking about banning hunting in Georgia? That's just a red herring thrown out there by insecure and marginally effective right-wing politicians, who want an easy "victory" they can brag about later (to make themselves feel more confident and appear more effective).
2-- I agree that the Eminent Domain Amendment generally restricts the government's use of this power, thus imposing a limit on Georgia politicians even though the U.S. Supreme Court says the U.S. Consitution imposes no such limit otherwise. Of course the Devil is in the details, and "public use" is still subject to legislative definition and judicial construction. And even if this Amendment were largely symbolic--just giving the public a chance to make its voice heard on the subject of Eminent Domain-- that's a good thing. The threat is real, and a lot more imminent than the possibility of losing our hunting and fishing rights.
3-- What do you guys think of the race for the Supreme Court seat: Justice Carol Hunstein vs. Mike Wiggins? I don't think Hunstein is anywhere near as liberal as Wiggins is trying to portray her, especially on the issue of crime and punishment. On the subject of gay rights, Hunstein is truly on the liberal side (but not alone--most or ALL of the other Justices joined her in those opinions) and Wiggins is on the conservative side. Does anyone have any information about where they stand on gun rights? Has Hunstein ever gone against the majority of her fellow Justices to dissent regarding guns, self-defense, gun rights, etc? Unless there's a good reason to get rid of her, I say keep her on the job.
1. When I first read it, it seemed like a bunch of fluff. It read to me like it was not going to change anything yet protect it at the same time. If you want to protect hunting, pass a bill like they have in other states mandating that if the state bans hunting on some of its land then it has to open up the same amount of land somewhere else for hunting.
The NRA is pushing it, though I think only my (non-existant) greatgrandchildren might benifit from this (who knows what it will be like 50-100 years from now).
2. The eminent domain that SCOTUS handed down only said that the US Constitution did not prevent a local government from taking someones land with proper compensation and then handing it over to someone to devolop a strip mall or such tax generating purposes. If it does not say it, then it should be changed so it does. This gives Georgia's localities a prohibition from doing it.
3. I don't know. I checked the NRA and they have endorsed Mike Wiggins, but then he is the only person they show. They don't have Carol Hunstein listed. http://www.nrapvf.org/elections/State.a ... ME%20COURT
The problem with the pro hunting and fishing amendment is that it is on the ballot. I doesn't really do anything but if it doesn't pass then it sends a signal to the anti-hunting groups (PETA etc.) that GA is weak on this issue.
I talked to one of the lobbyist about this amendment. It seems it started as an attempt to get Dems that were mad about the flag issue to come out and vote.
Lets face it. If you are pro gun you need to be pro hunting
I try to never agree with the AJC
I voted against all of them, but in the case of the 'emminent domaine' my reason was (from the LWV blog):
And as we have found out since 1837, the General Assembly can take a word and redefine it to mush.