When we get a legal definition of "strict scrutiny" and “compelling state interest” we'll know for sure. As it is they are planning on letting the courts tell us.
I, for one, do not wish to be governed by a whim of the court. I'll be voting 'No.'
I, for one, do not wish to be governed by a whim of the court. I'll be voting 'No.'
Well, I like bacon in my salads so it's a YES vote for me.
SMDH...
The farmer that supplies wheat and whole wheat flour to my bakery is voting no. That's enough for me.
If your a fan of Monsanto and GMO foods, vote YES. Thats who you're supporting...
Yep...a YES vote is constitutional protection for big-business special interests, and that is very dangerous from many perspectives. There is rich irony in wanting a small govt. that has the back of farmers/ranchers, and still voting YES on this one.
Not fully understanding how these things work, why is it that it seems like so many law changes require a constitutional amendment (which doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy)?
Because so few legislators can write a law that is actually constitutional. It just keeps getting in the way of doing what they want
Ok Still voting NO until they write something in English.
