This is the website of Abulsme Noibatno Itramne (also known as Sam Minter).
Posts here are rare these days. For current stuff, follow me on Mastodon
|
OK, that last one finished up Page 2 of my sample ballot. Now time for Page 1! Still going backwards from the end of course. Next is:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE I, SECTION 26
THE MEDICAL LIABILITY CLAIMANT’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT
Proposes to amend the State Constitution to provide that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This amendment is intended to be self-executing.
And the full text…
Section 1. Article I, Section 26 is created to read “Claimant’s right to fair compensation.” In any medical liability claim involving a contingency fee, the claimant is entitled to receive no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs, whether received by judgment, settlement, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of defendants. The claimant is entitled to 90% of all damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This provision is self-executing and does not require implementing legislation.
Section 2. This Amendment shall take effect on the day following approval by the voters.
OK. First, the negotiation of how to split fees between a client and their lawyer should be between the client and laywer, and should be a point of negotiation between them, and a point of competition between lawyers attempting to get the client’s business. Government has no business mandating who those arrangements should or should not be.
Second, of course, as could be easily guessed by my opinions on the other proposed amendments, something like this has no business in a constitution.
My vote: NO
It is now election day (UTC). Less than 11 hours until polls open here in Florida. Time to really chug through the ballot. There are 26 more things left to decide on. Urgh! Well, better get at it. Here is the next one:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 19
AUTHORIZES MIAMI-DADE AND BROWARD COUNTY VOTERS TO APPROVE SLOT MACHINES IN PARAMUTUEL FACILITIES
Authorizes Miami-Dade and Broward Counties to hold referenda on whether to authorize slot machines in existing, licensed parimutuel facilities (thoroughbred and harness racing, greyhound racing, and jai alai) that have conducted live racing or games in that county during each of the last two calendar years before effective date of this amendment. The Legislature may tax slot machine revenues, and any such taxes must supplement public education funding statewide. Requires implementing legislation.
This amendment alone has no fiscal impact on government. If slot machines are authorized in Miami-Dade or Broward counties, governmental costs associated with additional gambling will increase by an unknown amount and local sales tax-related revenues will be reduced by $5 million to $8 million annually. If the Legislature also chooses to tax slot machine revenues, state tax revenues from Miami-Dade and Broward counties combined would range from $200 million to $500 million annually.
And the full text…
Article X, Florida Constitution, is hereby amended to add the following as section 19:
SECTION 19. SLOT MACHINES –
(a) After voter approval of this constitutional amendment, the governing bodies of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties each may hold a county-wide referendum in their respective counties on whether to authorize slot machines within existing, licensed parimutuel facilities (thoroughbred and harness racing, greyhound racing, and jai-alai) that have conducted live racing or games in that county during each of the last two calendar years before the effective date of this amendment. If the voters of such county approve the referendum question by majority vote, slot machines shall be authorized in such parimutuel facilities. If the voters of such county by majority vote disapprove the referendum question, slot machines shall not be so authorized, and the question shall not be presented in another referendum in that county for at least two years.
(b) In the next regular Legislative session occurring after voter approval of this constitutional amendment, the Legislature shall adopt legislation implementing this section and having an effective date no later than July 1 of the year following voter approval of this amendment. Such legislation shall authorize agency rules for implementation, and may include provisions for the licensure and regulation of slot machines. The Legislature may tax slot machine revenues, and any such taxes must supplement public education funding statewide.
(c) If any part of this section is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion or portions shall be severed from the invalid portion and given the fullest possible force and effect.
(d) This amendment shall become effective when approved by vote of the electors of the state.
OK, a state referendum to amend the state constitution to allow for a local referendum on a local issue that only affects a couple of counties??
The gambling should probably be legal. That’s another thing government really has no business outlawing or placing too many regulations on. But that is not relevant here. (At least not to me.)
Now, if it was worded to allow all counties the option to decide gambling issues locally, rather than the narrowly tailored issue in those specific counties, then maybe… then it would at least be a structural issue moving some decision making power from the state to the counties.
But that is not what it is, not at all… As it is… the notion of a referendum to allow a referendum, all on an issue affecting only part of the state… as a perminant addition to the state constitution… is just silly.
My vote: NO
Just want to speak a little bit about my general principles. So far in a couple of the proposed amendments, I’ve said I am for the policy it represents, but will vote against it because it is a constitutional amendment, and I believe that is the wrong way to enact such a policy. But Sam, you say, if you are for the policy, shouldn’t you vote for those items, because that will produce an end result you favor more?
Well, it would, but for one thing. One of the things that I have always based my decisions on, both in my personal life, and in public policy issues like this, is that making sure there is CORRECT PROCESS, is more important that making sure there are CORRECT RESULTS. To use the old cliche for this, “The ends do not justify the means”.
In other words, even if the end state is a desireable one, if the way used to get there is an inappropriate one, then I do not believe one should go in that direction. Examples of how this applies to my views on some policy issues:
* Past discrimination should not be “corrected” by counter balancing it with current discrimination in the opposite direction.
* Using torture on suspected terrorists is not an appropriate way of preventing future attacks.
* The death penalty is not an appropriate way to punish or deter crime.
* Taking money from the rich to give to the poor is not a proper way to address proverty.
* Using “Eminent domain” to obtain land for public works or improvements is inappropriate.
* In most cases (not all), war is not an appropriate response to international disputes.
* There are many things which are “wrong” which should NOT be illegal.
* If someone does not follow the instructions properly and does something wrong when voting, their vote should NOT be counted (if that is what the law says), regardless of their intent.
* In most (but not all) cases, a properly passed law should be followed, even if it is stupid.
* Forcing a minimum wage on employers is not a proper way of addressing poverty.
* Consititutional Amendments are not a proper way to enact policy decisions.
I put the “(not all)” cavet explicitly in a couple of those, but in general the principle is NOT an absolute one. There are undoubitdly many cases where the ends DO justify the means… generally when the benefit of the “end” is much much much greater than the injustice done by the improper “means”. So for instance, in the torture case, if it was KNOWN that via torture one could produce information that would prevent a nuclear attack and save the lives of millions, would it be appropriate? OK, maybe. Are there some cases where the danger or injustice happening is so great that war to correct whatever is wrong is appropriate? Yes, probably.
It is not that I believe that an improper method is an automatic veto of whatever is happening, it is just that I put the bar very high on how much better the results must be to justify using a process or method that is unfair or improper in any way. As an example, on the issue of the proposed constitutional amendments, I’m sure most people view the method (constitutional amendement via referendum or the normal legislative process) as almost irrelevant, and therefore will vote exclusively on the issue itself, and which vote they believe will produce a policy result they prefer.
I on the other hand, consider that the propriety of the process itself, and using a constitutional document as a vehicle for policy issues, to be just as important if not more important than the issues themselves. If I saw any of these issues as something that was vitally important, and I also felt it was for whatever reason an issue impossible to be solved by the normal legislative process, then I *might* consider this as a potential way of addressing the issue, since the seriousness of the issue would overcome my objection to using a constitution in this way… I don’t see that situation in any of the proposed amendments I have looked at so far.
Anyway, I’m sure many will disagree with my logic here, and say the end result is more important than the process. But I believe in process, and following correct process, even in cases where it ends up screwing me over in the end and resulting in policies I don’t approve of. So be it. :-)
Time for another one. I sure will be busy tonight figuring out the rest of these!!! OK, you all know the drill by now. First, the ballot text:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X
FLORIDA MINIMUM WAGE AMENDMENT
This amendment creates a Florida minimum wage covering all employees in the state covered by the federal minimum wage. The state minimum wage will start at $6.15 per hour six months after enactment, and thereafter be indexed to inflation each year. It provides for enforcement, including double damages for unpaid wages, attorney’s fees, and fines by the state. It forbids retaliation against employees for exercising this right.
Then the real text:
SECTION X. Florida Minimum Wage Amendment
(a) Public Policy. All working Floridians are entitled to be paid a minimum wage that is sufficient to provide a decent and healthy life for them and their families, that protects their employers from unfair low-wage competition, and that does not force them to rely on taxpayer-funded public services in order to avoid economic hardship.
(b) Definitions. As used in this amendment, the terms “Employer,” “Employee” and “Wage” shall have the meanings established under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and its implementing regulations.
(c) Minimum Wage. Employerss shall pay Employees Wages no less than the Minimum Wage for all hours worked in Florida. Six months after enactment, the Minimum Wage shall be established at an hourly rate of $6.15. On September 30th of that year and on each following September 30th, the state Agency for Workforce Innovation shall calculate an adjusted Minimum Wage rate by increasing the current Minimum Wage rate by the rate of inflation during the twelve months prior to each September 1st using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers, CPI-W, or a successor index as calculated by the United States Department of Labor. Each adjusted Minimum Wage rate calculated shall be published and take effect on the following January 1st. For tipped Employees meeting eligibility requirements for the tip credit under the FLSA, Employers may credit towards satisfaction of the Minimum Wage tips up to the amount of the allowable FLSA tip credit in 2003.
(d) Retaliation Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for an Employer or any other party to discriminate in any manner or take adverse action against any person in retaliation for exercising rights protected under this amendment. Rights protected under this amendment include, but are not limited to, the right to file a complaint or inform any person about any party’s alleged noncompliance with this amendment, and the right to inform any person of his or her potential rights under this amendment and to assist him or her in asserting such rights.
(e) Enforcement. Persons aggrieved by a violation of this amendment may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction against an Employer or person violating this amendment and, upon prevailing, shall recover the full amount of any back wages unlawfully withheld plus the same amount as liquidated damages, and shall be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In addition, they shall be entitled to such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation including, without limitation, reinstatement in employment and/or injunctive relief. Any Employer or other person found liable for willfully violating this amendment shall also be subject to a fine payable to the state in the amount of $1000.00 for each violation. The state attorney general or other official designated by the state legislature may also bring a civil action to enforce this amendment. Actions to enforce this amendment shall be subject to a statute of limitations of four years or, in the case of willful violations, five years. Such actions may be brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 1.220 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
(f) Additional Legislation, Implementation & Construction. Implementing legislation is not required in order to enforce this amendment. The state legislature may by statute establish additional remedies or fines for violations of this amendment, raise the applicable Minimum Wage rate, reduce the tip credit, or extend coverage of the Minimum Wage to employers or employees not covered by this amendment. The state legislature may by statute or the state Agency for Workforce Innovation may by regulation adopt any measures appropriate for the implementation of this amendment. This amendment provides for payment of a minimum wage and shall not be construed to preempt or otherwise limit the authority of the state legislature or any other public body to adopt or enforce any other law, regulation, requirement, policy or standard that provides for payment of higher or supplemental wages or benefits, or that extends such protections to employers or employees not covered by this amendment. It is intended that case law, administrative interpretations, and other guiding standards developed under the federal FLSA shall guide the construction of this amendment and any implementing statutes or regulations.
(g) Severability. If any part of this amendment, or the application of this amendment to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this amendment, including the application of such part to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such a holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the parts of this amendment are severable.
OK, as usual, the two parts. First, on the merits of this as a policy… Wages should be determined by supply and demand. Period. Government has no business intervening in basic economic transactions like what wages should be. The salary paid for a particular job will settle to a value based on how much employers are willing to pay, and how little employees are willing to work for given the tasks and skills involved. Setting arbitrary restrictions on this process by putting in a minimum wage (or raising it) will only have the effect of employers hiring less people if the positions are ones they can potentially do without, or if not, moving the jobs to states or countries without such a restriction. Sure, some people would end up making more with such a floor on salaries, but many other people would simply end up unemployed. And besides, even if it would “work” it is none of government’s business. So on the merits of the policy, I am against it.
But again, regardless of the merits of the policy, this is indeed a POLICY question, not a question of basic governmental structure. It has no business in a constitution. So…
My vote is: NO
Below is a link to a handy reference chart for tomorrow night. Shows what time which polls close where. First polls close at 23:00 UTC on Nov 2. Last polls close at 06:00 UTC on Nov 3.
2004 Poll Closing Times
This chart reflects the poll closing times used by the networks and other media outlets on Election Night. There is an “unenforced pledge” to not project a winner in a state until that state’s polls have closed (which, to the media, means “most of the state’s polls have closed”).
Below the chart is an outline of potential difficulties which may occur where a state spans time zones. (Poll closing times are extended for voters still in line when the hour of poll closing has arrived.)
Anybody willing to place bets on what date and time we will actually have a known winner??? As someone who likes watching the chaos of the whole thing, I’m hoping it will last until December or maybe even January… but… the news gods can’t possibly let me have that much fun. Just watch, the networks will be declaring a winner (and not taking it back) by 01:30 UTC. (That’s 8:30 PM Eastern Standard Time.)
OK. Here is another one. First the ballot text:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 19
REPEAL OF HIGH SPEED RAIL AMENDMENT
This amendment repeals an amendment in the Florida Constitution that requires the Legislature, the Cabinet and the Governor to proceed with the development and operation of a high speed ground transportation system by the state and/or by a private entity.
The probable financial impact of passage of this amendment is a state cost savings ranging from $20 billion to $25 billion over the next 30 years. This estimate assumes the repeal of associated laws, the use of state bonds to finance construction, and could be reduced by federal or private sector funding.
And then the REAL text…
Article X, Section 19, Florida Constitution, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Where the current text of that Section is:
High speed ground transportation system.–To reduce traffic congestion and provide alternatives to the traveling public, it is hereby declared to be in the public interest that a high speed ground transportation system consisting of a monorail, fixed guideway or magnetic levitation system, capable of speeds in excess of 120 miles per hour, be developed and operated in the State of Florida to provide high speed ground transportation by innovative, efficient and effective technologies consisting of dedicated rails or guideways separated from motor vehicular traffic that will link the five largest urban areas of the State as determined by the Legislature and provide for access to existing air and ground transportation facilities and services. The Legislature, the Cabinet and the Governor are hereby directed to proceed with the development of such a system by the State and/or by a private entity pursuant to state approval and authorization, including the acquisition of right-of-way, the financing of design and construction of the system, and the operation of the system, as provided by specific appropriation and by law, with construction to begin on or before November 1, 2003.
OK. I’m all for high-speed rail. It is probably an infrastructure investment that would make sense. And hey, it is just plain cool. If I was in the legislature I would seriously consider voting for it. But once again, I don’t believe this is something that belongs in a constitution. In this case, since it is currently IN the constitution, and this proposal is to take it OUT…
My vote is: YES
If there is to be high speed rail, fine, but either let the private sector do it themselves (preferable) or have the legislature enact it on their own. A constitutional amendment is not the right forum.
Ok, here comes another one. I know this is becoming like all election all the time, but hey, it is just a few days away. A few more days of this and it will be over… maybe. Anyway, next is this one:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 22
PATIENTS’ RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT ADVERSE MEDICAL INCIDENTS
Current Florida law restricts information available to patients related to investigations of adverse medical incidents, such as medical malpractice. This amendment would give patients the right to review, upon request, records of health care facilities’ or providers’ adverse medical incidents, including those which could cause injury or death. Provides that patients’ identities should not be disclosed.
The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minimal. State agencies will incur some additional costs to comply with public records requirements of the amendment, but these costs will be generally offset by fees charged to the persons requesting the information.
Once again though, we’ll need the real full text, not just the summary:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:
1) Statement and Purpose:
The Legislature has enacted provisions relating to a patients’ bill of rights and responsibilities, including provisions relating to information about practitioners’ qualifications, treatment and financial aspects of patient care. The Legislature has, however, restricted public access to information concerning a particular health care provider’s or facility’s investigations, incidents or history of acts, neglects, or defaults that have injured patients or had the potential to injure patients. This information may be important to a patient. The purpose of this amendment is to create a constitutional right for a patient or potential patient to know and have access to records of a health care facility’s or provider’s adverse medical incidents, including medical malpractice and other acts which have caused or have the potential to cause injury or death. This right to know is to be balanced against an individual patient’s rights to privacy and dignity, so that the information available relates to the practitioner or facility as opposed to individuals who may have been or are patients.
2) Amendment of Florida Constitution:
Art. X, Fla. Const., is amended by inserting the following new section at the end thereof, to read:
“Section 22. Patients’ Right to Know About Adverse Medical Incidents.
“(a) In addition to any other similar rights provided herein or by general law, patients have a right to have access to any records made or received in the course of business by a health care facility or provider relating to any adverse medical incident.
“(b) In providing such access, the identity of patients involved in the incidents shall not be disclosed, and any privacy restrictions imposed by federal law shall be maintained.
“(c) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
“(1) The phrases “health care facility” and “health care provider” have the meaning given in general law related to a patient’s rights and responsibilities.
“(2) The term “patient” means an individual who has sought, is seeking, is undergoing, or has undergone care or treatment in a health care facility or by a health care provider.
“(3) The phrase “adverse medical incident” means medical negligence, intentional misconduct, and any other act, neglect, or default of a health care facility or health care provider that caused or could have caused injury to or death of a patient, including, but not limited to, those incidents that are required by state or federal law to be reported to any governmental agency or body, and incidents that are reported to or reviewed by any health care facility peer review, risk management, quality assurance, credentials, or similar committee, or any representative of any such committees.
“(4) The phrase “have access to any records” means, in addition to any other procedure for producing such records provided by general law, making the records available for inspection and copying upon formal or informal request by the patient or a representative of the patient, provided that current records which have been made publicly available by publication or on the Internet may be “provided” by reference to the location at which the records are publicly available.”
3) Effective Date and Severability: This amendment shall be effective on the date it is approved by the electorate. If any portion of this measure is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion of this measure, to the fullest extent possible, shall be severed from the void portion and given the fullest possible force and application.
OK. So looking at this, this is exactly what I said I WOULD support when I was talking about Amendment 8. Rather than automatically forbidding doctors to practice with a certain number of black marks on their record, just make sure that the record is publically available and people choosing doctors (and hospitals hiring doctors for ERs and such) can make an informed decision.
So… if this was a proposed new law in the legislature, I might very well support it.
But the problem is that this is not a proposed normal law. This is a proposed amendment to the Florida Constitution. Now, the “Statement and Purpose” says this is to “create a constitutional right for a patient or potential patient to know”.
I said that having things like a “Bill of Rights” in a Constitution (or amendments thereto) is appropriate… but what is appropriate there is definitions of governmental restrictions… in other words places where government is prohibited to act because certain rights are reserved to individuals. In other words, what are called “negative rights”. Things that the government is prohibited from interfering in. “Positive rights”, which are actually not rights at all, but rather entitlements… things which
Now, personally I am very dubious about the idea of positive rights in any context. I’m not sure there actually is any such thing. The idea that an individual should be protected from many forms of abusive government action seems obvious to me. The notion that people somehow should be “entitled” to specific things bestowed upon them by the government does not.
Now, that does not mean that I believe that under no circumstances should government every bestow things on people. In some cases they should, and regulations in many areas while to be avoided if possible, is sometimes necessary or desireable. But those things should be matters of policy, and I do not think they elevate to the level of a “right”. And thus I think those sorts of things should be decided OUTSIDE of a constitution.
So, in this case I actually SUPPORT the policy goals of this amendment. I think it would be a good thing if something like this was enacted as a LAW. However I think it is inappropriate for something like this to be included in the state constitution. So…
My vote is: NO
I am so not doing enough of these fast enough. I’ll have to really work on the weekend. Anyway, it is lunch time, and I’m all woozy from prescription cough medicine (I’ve been sick for about a week now), so I figure I have a few minutes to do another one of these before trying to get my woozy head around finishing writing a couple of documents I have to write for work today… Anyway:
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
ARTICLE X, SECTION 20
PUBLIC PROTECTION FROM REPEATED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
Current law allows medical doctors who have committed repeated malpractice to be licensed to practice medicine in Florida. This amendment prohibits medical doctors who have been found to have committed three or more incidents of medical malpractice from being licensed to practice medicine in Florida.
The direct financial impact on state and local governments resulting from the proposed initiative would be minimal. There will likely be additional costs to the state of less than $1 million per year, but these costs will be offset by licensure fees.
OK, but like a couple of others, this is the abbrivated ballot text, and to really judge this one needs to look at the full text…
BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF FLORIDA THAT:
a) Statement and Purpose:
Under current law, a medical doctor who has repeatedly committed medical malpractice in Florida or while practicing in other states or countries may obtain or continue to hold a professional license to practice medicine in Florida. The purpose of this amendment is to prohibit such a doctor from obtaining or holding a license to practice medicine in Florida.
b) Amendment of Florida Constitution:
Art. X, Fla. Const., is amended by inserting the following new section at the end thereof, to read:
“Section 20. Prohibition of Medical License After Repeated Medical Malpractice.
“a) No person who has been found to have committed three or more incidents of medical malpractice shall be licensed or continue to be licensed by the State of Florida to provide health care services as a medical doctor.
“b) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the following meanings:
“i) The phrase “medical malpractice” means both the failure to practice medicine in Florida with that level of care, skill, and treatment recognized in general law related to health care providers’ licensure, and any similar wrongful act, neglect, or default in other states or countries which, if committed in Florida, would have been considered medical malpractice.
“ii) The phrase “found to have committed” means that the malpractice has been found in a final judgment of a court or law, final administrative agency decision, or decision of binding arbitration.”
c) Effective Date and Severability:
This amendment shall be effective on the date it is approved by the electorate. If any portion of this measure is held invalid for any reason, the remaining portion of this measure, to the fullest extent possible, shall be severed from the void portion and given the fullest possible force and application.
Some of my questions on the measure based on the abbreaviated text were answered by reading the full text. Anybody voting on these things should always read the full text and not rely on the summaries… Also, this is an ammendment to an existing document, so one needs to look at the current language too…
OK, WTF… According to the copy of the Florida Constitution on the official Florida Senate website, there is ALREADY an Article X Section 20 (Dealing with “Workplaces without tabacco smoke”), whereas this says Section 20 will be added onto the end of Article X… something is screwy here. Perhaps a couple of the old sections were repealed and the website hasn’t been updated yet? I don’t know, but I don’t like this!
OK, lets assume this is just some numbering snafu, and I just don’t have a current copy of the constitution, even if it is on the official government website… lets look at a couple other things about the ammendment…
But before I do that, I just have to say, Article X is “MISCELLANEOUS”. What kind of structure is that? This is a constitution! There shouldn’t be a section like that! And Article X Section 21 is “Limiting cruel and inhumane confinement of pigs during pregnancy.” Excuse me??? Now, I’m not saying that I advocate cruel and inhumane confinement of pregnant pigs, and this might very well make a great normal LAW. But it has absolutely no place in a CONSTITUTION.
Constitutions (national, state, whatever) are supposed to at a high level define the basic structures of government, how they interact with each other, how offices are filled… that sort of thing. And perhaps basic definitions of rights and responsibilities. (Such as the Bill of Rights in the US constitution.) Issues of specific governmental policies on specific narrowly drawn issues have no place in a constituation. Those types of issues should be resolved through the normal legislative process as implemented by the executive and interpreted by the courts. To put them in a constitutional document is to corrupt the value of the constitution and to improperly elevate policy issues into the basic structure of government. This is wrong. And will effect my vote on this issue as well… and perhaps most of the proposed ammendments…
OK, now back to this specific amendment. Basically it imposes a three strikes and you are out rule on doctors with regard to malpractice. I was worried when I just read the summary about just how one was determined to have committed malpractice, if there were mechanisms for appeal, etc. The full amendment defines that a bit more. A “final judgement” is needed, meaning that an appeals process is available before that point. However, there is still no mechanism here for evaluating the comparative seriousness of incidents. That is troubling. Not all cases of malpractice are equal, some are worse than others. Also the opponants arguments about this chasing away doctors does have some weight, but my main concern on this item from a pure policy point of view is simply that it is arbitrary, and takes choice away from the individual, and instead mandates a puinshment for the doctors. I’m not saying I’m for bad doctors continuing to practice and hurt people… I just don’t think this is the correct way to deal with it.
I’d be for a policy requiring full disclosure, so you could look up a Doctor’s history and see exactly what issues they had in the past, and then make an educated decision. But I don’t want the government making that call for me. So on a pure policy basis, I would be against this.
However, and I take this to be even more important, as I indicated above… this is a policy issue which can and should be decided by the legislature. This is NOT something that should be included in a State Constitution. (Although I understand the way the initiative process is structured… it can apperantly only ammend the constitution, not other laws, makes this very tempting.) Matters of governmental policy, rather than governmental structure and organization, have no place in the constitution. If laws need to be passed on this subject, the legislature should do this. This is not the right place or method. Therefore…
My vote is: NO
Lunch is over. More later.
Looking over the next few ballot questions though… the next 7 of them are all constitutional ammendments. And they ALL seem to relate to policy issue rather than structural issues. So I may already know my vote. But on each one I will make a seperate evaluation on the policy issue and state what my opinion there is. But, even if I am for the policy, I most likely will be AGAINST the ammendment… simply because policy issues should not be corrupting a state constitution. That is not what they are for. Or at least not what they SHOULD be for… even if that is how they are obviously being used. That is what the legislative branch is for. (And in some cases the executive and the courts.)
Proposed Amendment No 6 is slightly different, but I’ll talk about that one when I get to that one…
Also, I am strongly reconsidering my earlier stated position on Brevard County Referendum 2. I’d said my position was already weak. I may be about to flip. If I do, I will of course post an update. :-)
Hmmm… what I’ve been talking about here may also apply to the Brevard County Charter Amendment 3. I’ll have to think about that one a little too. If I change my mind on it, I’ll be sure to post about it. I’m sure you all will be waiting in great suspense.
Drat electoral-vote.com for warning this Ohio elector and spoiling all the fun! But here are a few more fun possibilities…
Electoral-Vote.com Oct 29th Update
Stupidity news revisited: Yesterday I pointed out that one of Kerry’s Ohio electors, Rep. Sherrod Brown, is constitutionally ineligible to be an elector because he is a federal officeholder. He resigned yesterday as elector, undoubtedly due to my pointing this out to 650,000 people. Suppose he had stayed on and Kerry won the popular vote and Ohio and the electoral college 270 to 268. If the Republicans had gone to the Supreme Court and gotten Brown declared ineligible and also gotten a ruling saying that Ohio could not replace him with someone the voters had not selected, the score would be Kerry 269, Bush 268. Since Kerry would no longer have the required 270 electoral votes needed to win, the House, controlled by the Republicans, would then choose Bush. We could have had a situation in which Kerry won the popular vote, Kerry won the electoral vote, and Bush became president. I don’t think that would have been good for the country.
Even more unlikely news: A reader pointed this out to be. Suppose the EC is tied 269 to 269 and the House deadlocks 25 states to 25 states. This is exceedingly unlikely, but just suppose. Then the Senate gets to choose the vice president. Also suppose the new Senate is divided 50-50, a very real possibility. Then the sitting vice president, Dick Cheney, gets to cast the deciding vote, electing himself as the new vice president. In the absence of a president, Cheney would be acting president for four years. This is not likely to happen because the Republicans are virtually certain of controlling at least 26 state delegations in the House. Still, scenarios like this one support the case for electoral college reform.
Actually, I think it supports the opposite. Start teaching people again about how we do NOT live in a democracy, how pure democracy does not properly protect people with minority viewpoints and is inherantly unstable, and how what we live in is a constitutional republic NOT a democracy, and this is actually a good thing. And point out how the electoral college is a very important way of balancing the interests of small and large states, etc. And start teaching people how they are really electing electors, and not the president.
And even better, go back to how it is supposed to be… where the electors actually form a deliberative body and select the president in December, completely detached from any popular election at all. If anything, the elections in November should be for the people to pick people from their state they trust to be electors. Those people would then meet and go through a process of picking a president and vice-president. There should be people running for elector, NOT people running for president…
(Or alternately, let the state legislatures pick the electors… that also works within the current constitutional structures…. between the weakening of the electoral college, and the popular election of senators, the representation of the states in the Federal government has eroded much too much in the last 200 years… letting the state legislatures pick electors rather than choosing electors based on popular vote would be one step toward fixing that problem.)
Um, I know my views on this are a couple centuries out of date though. But I look at how it was originally set up and it makes so much SENSE. The fact that it has been corrupted over the years annoys me no end.
Mark my words though, if the electoral college is ever abandoned in favor of a pure popular vote for President, the United States will break into multiple countries within 150 years of the change! If it even takes that long…
Um, I’m digressing. Anyway, look at the fun and interesting to watch scenerios that can happen if electors get uppity and actually act as independant rational actors the way they are supposed to rather than just as rubber stamps for the popular vote in their states… it could get fun!
But it probably won’t. :-(
Oh please, oh please, oh please! We couldn’t possibly get this much fun, could we???
Tie Goes to the…
(Matt Glassman, Tech Central Station)
Interested in becoming president this year? If so, hope for an electoral college tie. With an unlikely, but plausible, perfect tie — 269 electoral votes for both George W. Bush and John Kerry — anyone meeting the Constitutional qualifications for president could end up president. Here’s how.
(via Fark)
Read the whole thing, it goes through the whole scenerio. That would be awesome!!!
|
|