Amendments that will be on the ballot

[Oh Shoot]

Yep, that's it. Like I said, it doesn't make much sense (at least to me). The state interprets "voting for Governor" as actually casting a ballot in the Gubernatorial race.

 

Again, don't mean to be combative, but where can I read some official confirmation of that?

 

I had added a sentence to above post: ie, I'm dubious our election tabulation process is overall sophisticated enough to take into account those Boolean variables, for one thing.

 

- OS

Edited October 22, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

No one ever seems to put forth a ballot initiative to modify the state constitution regarding the right to bear arms.  Sure would be nice if that was fixed.

[bubbadavis]

Again, don't mean to be combative, but where can I read some official confirmation of that?

 

I had added a sentence to above post: but I'm dubious our election tabulation process is overall sophisticated to take into account those variables, for one thing.

 

- OS

 

If you're trying to be combative, you need to try MUCH harder. I believe in the trust but verify methodology too.

 

http://www.tn.gov/sos/election/results/2002-11/Amend-info.pdf includes this:

 

Counting the votes

In order for the amendment to pass and become part of the Constitution, two things must happen:

1) The amendment must get more "yes" votes than "no" votes; and

2) The number of "yes" votes must be a majority of the votes cast in the gubernatorial election.

To determine the votes needed, all votes for all candidates for governor are added together. This number 

is divided by two or halved. The number of "yes" votes must exceed that number. If the number of "yes" 

votes exceeds the number, the Constitutional amendment passes and becomes part of the Constitution.

[Oh Shoot]

 

If you're trying to be combative, you need to try MUCH harder. I believe in the trust but verify methodology too.

 

http://www.tn.gov/sos/election/results/2002-11/Amend-info.pdf includes this:

 

Counting the votes

In order for the amendment to pass and become part of the Constitution, two things must happen:

1) The amendment must get more "yes" votes than "no" votes; and

2) The number of "yes" votes must be a majority of the votes cast in the gubernatorial election.

To determine the votes needed, all votes for all candidates for governor are added together. This number 

is divided by two or halved. The number of "yes" votes must exceed that number. If the number of "yes" 

votes exceeds the number, the Constitutional amendment passes and becomes part of the Constitution.

 

 

All righty then, appreciate it. That is of course quite definitive!

 

Now, having all the faith in the world of course with all facets of state government that I do,   I wonder just how well they can accurately tabulate the results. :)  Realistically, I'm sure it wouldn't much matter unless it were extremely close.

 

- OS

Edited October 22, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[btq96r]

 

If you're trying to be combative, you need to try MUCH harder. I believe in the trust but verify methodology too.

 

http://www.tn.gov/sos/election/results/2002-11/Amend-info.pdf includes this:

 

Counting the votes

In order for the amendment to pass and become part of the Constitution, two things must happen:

1) The amendment must get more "yes" votes than "no" votes; and

2) The number of "yes" votes must be a majority of the votes cast in the gubernatorial election.

To determine the votes needed, all votes for all candidates for governor are added together. This number 

is divided by two or halved. The number of "yes" votes must exceed that number. If the number of "yes" 

votes exceeds the number, the Constitutional amendment passes and becomes part of the Constitution.

 

 

You would think with those special rules, the Yes on 1 campaign would have some mention of it in their TV ad's and flyers.  Whoever is responsible for that oversight might cause a majority for Yes to still fail.

[Oh Shoot]

What a specious argument. Like saying if you don't drink soda, it's a choice for Pepsi instead of Coke.  If you don't vote, you don't vote -- you're simply not part of the equation.

 

You should be happy enough that I'm not negating your vote, eh?

 

 

If there is one, I'm nowhere near vain enough to claim knowing its mind.

 

- OS

 

Note: Tricky, I was wrong about the vote. IF you vote for Governor, such enough not voting for an amendment is mathematically same as a no vote on it, at least if they tally the vote correctly.

 

See posts directly before this one.

 

- OS

Edited October 22, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

One more point about Amend 1 and voting or not voting.  If 50% + 1 vote of the Governor's election total votes is not reached by this amendment, then it fails. 

 

A non-vote is tabulated by the counter as a no vote. It is not registered as a "non-vote". Thus a non vote is automatically a no vote. He wasn't making a subjective equivalence statement. It was an objective statement of procedure.

 

 

Apologies to both youse guys, btw. You both had it pegged correctly assuming you do also vote in Governor's race.

 

- OS

Edited October 22, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Steelharp]

NO on 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgqDAqtr9Xo

[Oh Shoot]

NO on 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgqDAqtr9Xo

 

Still a de facto faulty premise in opening question. "Why is it good for TN citizens to give up their right to vote?"

 

Meaning,  we haven't elected justices since 1971 or before.  The "Tennessee Plan" we've had for many years was deemed constitutional by state SCOTUS. So not passing the amendment isn't giving the citizenry the vote without a change in the statutes.

 

Would be more accurate to say that defeating the amendment would perhaps allow us to vote for justices ... someday.

 

All in all though, I'll say it again: if the process was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me I reckon. Plus it goes the extra mile of having both houses confirm, not just the senate.

 

- OS

Edited October 22, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Steelharp]

 if the process was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me I reckon. 

 

- OS

I guess I'm exhausted. Care to elaborate?

[Oh Shoot]

I guess I'm exhausted. Care to elaborate?

 

The President selects Supreme Court and appellate justices, only the Senate confirms or denies.

 

If amendment passes, same here for Gov, cept both houses have to confirm. And also unlike federal, there are retention votes by the people.

 

Not even sure I like the retention vote thang. Think if we had that federally, would there be one even halfway conservative justice left in the 9? Would MacDonald and Heller even have had a remote chance?

 

- OS

Edited October 22, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[DaveTN]

No offense, OS.....but I'm glad you made it out okay.  ;)

I’m pretty firm in my beliefs and outspoken on most issues, but I don’t mind saying I just can’t seem to get on either side of the abortion issue.

I believe abortion is immoral and wrong. However, I have interviewed several rape victims and I think it’s immoral and wrong to force them to have a baby by someone that brutally attacked them and damaged them physically and mentally.

A mother’s life is at risk with a pregnancy and she can’t have an abortion, the family just watches her die? I can’t get on board with that either.

So I guess I’m for leaving it up to the people that are dealing with it to decide. Edited October 23, 2014 by DaveTN

[Randall53]

I’m pretty firm in my beliefs and outspoken on most issues, but I don’t mind saying I just can’t seem to get on either side of the abortion issue.

I believe abortion is immoral and wrong. However, I have interviewed several rape victims and I think it’s immoral and wrong to force them to have a baby by someone that brutally attacked them and damaged them physically and mentally.

A mother’s life is at risk with a pregnancy and she can’t have an abortion, the family just watches her die? I can’t get on board with that either.

So I guess I’m for leaving it up to the people that are dealing with it to decide.

 

I'm in the same boat Dave. In today's idiot world, I'm sure somewhere down the line some idiot judge would force a rape victim to allow a rapist visitation to his child, thus forcing this woman to be attached to and forced to be in contact with the criminal for the rest of her life, giving the criminal an open door to enjoy tormenting her for his entertainment. Kind of like wife beaters get to do now.

[stillstanding669]

Guys I'm hesitant to even try, but here I am trying to see why you both think that the most extreme is what will happen or be the "will of the people".  As stated above in these posts, we are not voting for or against abortion.  That has been settled by Roe Vs Wade back in the 70's by the Supreme Court Of the United States.  Our TN Constitution had prohibited abortions in our state prior to that decision for the entire country.

 

What this Amendment does is let our State Legislature have the State Constitutional authority to place common sense restrictions or procedures to have abortions in our state.  We the voting Tennesseans are still going to be able to have our voices heard through the representative type of government we have here in TN (We are a Republic).

 

There might be things like a waiting period of 24 or 48 hours, clinics that are inspected and licensed, a sonogram, possibly require the women to be residents of this state, and maybe even require parental consent for minors.  However, there is probably no way that your extreme cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc... are ever going to make it through our Legislature and be signed into law by an elected Governor!  TV commercials are working really well at scaring people into the wrong conclusions!

[Oh Shoot]

Guys I'm hesitant to even try, but here I am trying to see why you both think that the most extreme is what will happen or be the "will of the people".  As stated above in these posts, we are not voting for or against abortion.  That has been settled by Roe Vs Wade back in the 70's by the Supreme Court Of the United States.  Our TN Constitution had prohibited abortions in our state prior to that decision for the entire country.

 

What this Amendment does is let our State Legislature have the State Constitutional authority to place common sense restrictions or procedures to have abortions in our state.  We the voting Tennesseans are still going to be able to have our voices heard through the representative type of government we have here in TN (We are a Republic).

 

There might be things like a waiting period of 24 or 48 hours, clinics that are inspected and licensed, a sonogram, possibly require the women to be residents of this state, and maybe even require parental consent for minors.  However, there is probably no way that your extreme cases of rape, incest, life of the mother, etc... are ever going to make it through our Legislature and be signed into law by an elected Governor!  TV commercials are working really well at scaring people into the wrong conclusions!

 

Why is the amendment even necessary to do any of that? 

 

I see it as a rallying battle cry, to help justify the most extreme limitations possible they think they can get away with, achieving a de facto abortion ban.  Just like MS and some other states:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/us/mississippi-abortion-clinic-federal-court-blocks-closing.html?_r=0

 

- OS

Edited October 27, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Smith]

I'm in the same boat Dave. In today's idiot world, I'm sure somewhere down the line some idiot judge would force a rape victim to allow a rapist visitation to his child, thus forcing this woman to be attached to and forced to be in contact with the criminal for the rest of her life, giving the criminal an open door to enjoy tormenting her for his entertainment. Kind of like wife beaters get to do now.

Problem is that's a Red Herring argument to the nth degree. Rape and incest account for less than .05 of 1% of all abortions in the US. Statistically, it doesn't exist. I understand the consideration, but it really doesn't play into the argument. The real argumenet is if we as a nation are comfortable with legally killing millions of children simply because they are an inconvenient consequence of peoples poor choices.

[Hozzie]

What this Amendment does is let our State Legislature have the State Constitutional authority to place common sense restrictions or procedures to have GUNS in our state.  

 

With a small change, this /\ /\ could also be said.  I bet you aren't in agreement with that.  

 

Common sense is not the same as common belief.  Common sense to me says let the person it affects make the decision, not some bureaucrat.  If you sincerely believe that the goal of this is not to try and attempt to make laws so stringent that it becomes a de facto abortion ban then I think we certainly have different views of what is common sense in this matter.

 

I suspect those on both sides will just have to agree to disagree.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Hozzie

[stillstanding669]

From the Article: "In a dissent, Judge Emilio M. Garza agreed with Mississippi’s arguments, saying that the law was a reasonable effort to regulate and add safeguards to abortions. Disputing the central premise of the opinion, he wrote that “no state is obligated to provide or guarantee the provision of abortion services within its borders.”

 

There are numerous reasons to control / restrict / or help these young women make a better decision when dealing with the life of the baby inside their bodies.  However, in the above dissent the Judge is echoing my concern from an earlier post about forcing States to start paying for all abortions with tax payers money.

[stillstanding669]

Guns when we are talking abortions?  Really!  If you want to know what I really believe about abortions in general, here you go:

 

There are decisions folks make everyday of their lives that they have to pay for financially, emotionally, and spiritually if you adhere to God's way of living your life.  Abortion should not be a form of birth control either!  The decision to have sex or not to have sex was the point at which the woman's right to control her body ended, and the right of the unborn baby that gets conceived started.  In the case of rape, that individual should be given the opportunity to let the baby be adopted instead of two wrongs trying to make a right.  The baby should be protected also if you happen to believe that the Bible is truly God's word.  Psalms 139: 13-16 describe when we were counted as being an individual in God's eyes.  Proverbs 6: 16-19 tells me that certain things that we are all capable of doing make God sick to his stomach to the point of vomiting.  Everyone will be judged for the decisions we make here in this life by the very words of the One that created life.  I will answer for what I have done, as will everyone else whether we want to or not---Jesus is the Judge!

 

Guns:  I say the U.S. Constitution gives every law abiding citizen the right to carry whatever gun they want, when they want, where ever they want.  No permit needed.

[NextExit]

What this Amendment does is let our State Legislature have the State Constitutional authority to place common sense restrictions or procedures to have abortions in our state.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm skeptical when I see "The state" & "common sense restrictions" in the same sentence.

Doesn't matter if it's a state run by liberals or conservatives, they have their own idea of "common sense restrictions" and what's "best for the people."

Pick any state and you'll find a law that makes you ask "Why the hell would they pass a law that says    fill in the blank    ?" And some politician will say "Cus it's a good idea."

[cjohnson44546]

From what I've read... there is some court case that found that the TN Constitution actually does protect abortions in some way (don't recall the details, but it sounded like twisting of the words by the judge).  Because of this ruling, nothing will ever be done to affect abortions legal-wise.  They want to amend the Constitution just to say "this doesn't protect abortions" so people can't use that court case any more... and other laws can (can, not will be) passed to cover abortion.

 

Pro-abortion people don't want this, because with the court ruling, they basically have a constitutionally protected right to abortions.

 

With a small change, this /\ /\ could also be said.  I bet you aren't in agreement with that.  

 

Common sense is not the same as common belief.  Common sense to me says let the person it affects make the decision, not some bureaucrat.  If you sincerely believe that the goal of this is not to try and attempt to make laws so stringent that it becomes a de facto abortion ban then I think we certainly have different views of what is common sense in this matter.

 

I suspect those on both sides will just have to agree to disagree.

That is not a small change... changing it to Guns is huge.  Where in the US Constitution is killing unborn babies a recognized or protected right right?  Where in the TN Constitution?  There are people ("Judges") who have claimed that is the meaning of some words in the Constitution, but it is not directly addressed in the Constitutions.  Guns are directly addressed, which is why your changing that one word is a HUGE change.

[cjohnson44546]

Guns:  I say the U.S. Constitution gives every law abiding citizen the right to carry whatever gun they want, when they want, where ever they want.  No permit needed.

 

A correction for you... the US Constitution recognizes the right, it doesn't give the right.

[DaveTN]

Problem is that's a Red Herring argument to the nth degree. Rape and incest account for less than .05 of 1% of all abortions in the US. Statistically, it doesn't exist. I understand the consideration, but it really doesn't play into the argument. The real argumenet is if we as a nation are comfortable with legally killing millions of children simply because they are an inconvenient consequence of peoples poor choices.

I’m not comfortable with legally killing anyone. It’s one of the reasons I do not support the death penalty.

If it is a “Red Herring” argument meant to mislead or distract why was it specifically put in the text of the amendment? Are we to believe that the government would not allow a Doctor to play God by choosing between the life of the mother or child, or stop a rape victim from having an abortion? They don’t get to do that right now, wanting the ability to do it is the only reason for that text to be there.

If it comes down to those choices; the government is the last group in the world that I believe should be calling the shots. It should be between the family and medical professionals.
 

Nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion. The people retain the right through their elected state representatives and state senators to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, including, but not limited to, circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

[TrickyNicky]

Note: Tricky, I was wrong about the vote. IF you vote for Governor, such enough not voting for an amendment is mathematically same as a no vote on it, at least if they tally the vote correctly.
 
See posts directly before this one.
 
- OS

Wait, is there another Tricky____ on board, or did you really just answer a question before it was asked? :stunned:

[Oh Shoot]

Wait, is there another Tricky____ on board, or did you really just answer a question before it was asked? :stunned:

 

Can't claim precognition I'm afraid. ;)

 

Saw that you liked my post, but post was erroneous, just wanted you to know. :)

 

- OS