User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/28/2020 7:37:19 AM EDT
[#1]
Bad last I checked the details. Too much vagueness so it could be interpreted in too many ways. Further I am nearly always of a mind that regular legislation can handle most any situation. A constitutional amendment should be a very special event.
With that said, read it for yourself and see what you think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2020 10:01:04 AM EDT
[#2]
I voted no on it. There are too many issues with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2020 10:22:06 AM EDT
[#3]
It is terrible. Every attorney I ask, especially prosecutors, hate it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2020 5:04:49 PM EDT
[#4]
I automatically vote "no" on shit they wanna add to the constitution. It's never anything in our favor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2020 10:07:38 PM EDT
[#5]
^
This, times INFINITY!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/28/2020 10:17:34 PM EDT
[#6]
Too close to removing the presumption of innocent before proven guilty so it was a no for me.
Also how the hell did that judges amendment get on the ballot? Who felt so strongly we needed to extend their term two years? Easiest no vote ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2020 5:58:57 AM EDT
[#7]
Voted no to both. Marcys law does pretty much nothing, and I'm not going to change the constitution without a damn good reason. Kelsey Grammar is not a good reason.
Also voted no on the judge thing, frankly because I didn't know anything about it and don't see any big issues with how/when they get selected as is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2020 8:19:01 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Too close to removing the presumption of innocent before proven guilty so it was a no for me. Also how the hell did that judges amendment get on the ballot? Who felt so strongly we needed to extend their term two years? Easiest no vote ever. I think it also increased the amount of legal experience that a person needs to have to be appointed a Judge. Not in favor of that also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2020 9:08:37 AM EDT
[#9]
It required a lawyer to have 4 years experience before becoming a judge. I really liked that idea since now they can become a judge with ZERO experience but I saw no reason to extend their terms.
Point blank, I voted no on both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2020 1:35:10 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It required a lawyer to have 4 years experience before becoming a judge. I really liked that idea since now they can become a judge with ZERO experience but I saw no reason to extend their terms. Point blank, I voted no on both. I agree and did same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/29/2020 4:59:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It required a lawyer to have 4 years experience before becoming a judge. I really liked that idea since now they can become a judge with ZERO experience but I saw no reason to extend their terms. Point blank, I voted no on both. Actually I believe the US Constitution does not require a federal judge to be an attorney or have experience to be appointed a judge. So I am against the provision in the current form not just the proposed amendment for a state judge in the state constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2020 1:49:16 PM EDT
[#12]
When I was a kid, there was no requirement that a judge be an attorney. At that time, we had city judges and county judges that held court and decided criminal cases. The city judge in my hometown owned a furniture store in town and had no legal training. He just did what the prosecutor told him to do. "Fair trial" was a fantasy. I was on a Grand Jury once and the County Attorney told us we needed to indict a man because the judge had been wanting to get him for a long time. I asked if the judge shouldn't recuse himself in that case and they wanted to kick me off the jury. They had never heard of anything like that. I never would vote for an indictment and convinced enough others and the man never was indicted. That was common in those days. That was all changed by judicial reform in the 1970's. All judges and courts are part of the state court system now. This has greatly reduced local corruption and "home cooking" in the local courts. Ky used to be famous for "Speed traps". Most of those have disappeared. They don't pay off anymore. All fines now go to the state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2020 3:39:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: I automatically vote "no" on shit they wanna add to the constitution. It's never anything in our favor. Quoted: ^ This, times INFINITY!!!!!!! Quoted: It required a lawyer to have 4 years experience before becoming a judge. I really liked that idea since now they can become a judge with ZERO experience but I saw no reason to extend their terms. Point blank, I voted no on both. Same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2020 10:42:59 AM EDT
[#14]
I voted no on both as well.
Agree, constitutional changes need to have exceptionally strong merit. ... and extending any office's term limits is always a quick hell no from me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2020 9:56:03 AM EDT
[#15]
It passed
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2020 9:57:11 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It passed I suppose one should never question the persuasiveness of Kelsey Grammar... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/4/2020 10:39:21 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I suppose one should never question the persuasiveness of Kelsey Grammar... Or the stupidity of voters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2020 1:20:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Anyone know why the Republicans introduced the bill for this and the Republican leadership put it on the fast track to get passed through the legislature and put on the ballot? They can do this for something that seems like a bad idea but then when I ask them about doing a constitutional amendment to call the legislature back into session of the Governor declares an emergency all I get is excuses about how hard it is to do something like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2020 10:01:37 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Or the stupidity of voters. More Ignorance of voters. Most do not inform themselves enough on such on issue to make a logical decision. Everyone I talked to I was able to convince to vote no on it once explaining the issues with this amendment. It does appear to have passed with a lesser margin that last time but it was not enough to defeat it. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
