Posted: 9/18/2026 7:13:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Master_Blaster][Edited]
|
No gas for thee, because "multiple subjects". Again. Because they hate it when voters block the agenda. I have propane for home heating & the stovetop. I wonder if it's next? |
|
Originally Posted By mancat: But none of the anti 2A initiatives are ever found in violation of the single subject rule because the state courts just argue that the subject is "firearms" so whatever face blast of rules they want to enact are ok Or the court throws out challenge on " no standing " amazingly the Dems never have that problem challenging inits they don't like. The fix is in for WA state supreme Court to approve state income tax. |
|
Originally Posted By mancat: But none of the anti 2A initiatives are ever found in violation of the single subject rule because the state courts just argue that the subject is "firearms" so whatever face blast of rules they want to enact are ok yep, we need some new Supremes on the WA court, and we have a chance to vote some in. I need to do some research to be sure I do not vote out one good justice, I am pretty sure the rest suck |
My Sister....."Damn girl, get over it, we have all had to get on our knees and suck a dick to get what we wanted."
Great Aunt Florence..."Life is too short to drink cheap booze"
Great Aunt Florence..."Life is too short to drink cheap booze"
|
okay I have a really really stupid question Law was passed Initiative then edited the law, and it passed Goes through the court system, court says nope unconsitutional now one side is sad, and the other is happy wait (here is the question) The law was changed, the court tosses, how come that means we go back to the original law as passed? It no longer exists due to the edits from the initiative. So the original law should be deleted too. Now I shall put a flame suit on |
|
Originally Posted By mancat: But none of the anti 2A initiatives are ever found in violation of the single subject rule because the state courts just argue that the subject is "firearms" so whatever face blast of rules they want to enact are ok I think it was back when they first concocted this single subject rule that it was the 2nd or 3rd Eyman $30 cartab initiative that ole Turdy Fergie enforced this rule to invalidate the initiative after it passed. Then a cycle later, when I-1639 passed, we in the 2A community said IT violated single subject rule. And ole Turd Ferguson went on record saying “But the people have spoken” |