No
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Marsy's Law. Vote No.
- Thread starter libertysteeth
- Start date
So is a simple majority vote all that’s need to to amend GA constitution?
I’ve not seen a single counter point advertisement.
I’ve not seen a single counter point advertisement.
I vote N O ................
I Vote NO
I've spent about 1.5 hours researching the history of Marsy's law, and I'll vote "NO" but not because it's a horrible law. I just think that out of respect for the constitution, amending it should be done as a last resort after our own legislature has enacted the same kinds of laws in O.C.G.A. statutory law AND THEN those laws, or parts of those laws, were found to be in violation of the criminals' rights under (only) the Georgia Constitution of 1983.
(If the courts find that statutory victims' rights laws are in violation of criminals rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there's nothing we in GA can do about that. The federal constitution trumps all else, and Georgia has no power to subtract from those rights.)
The entire MARSY'S LAW initiative comes from a well-funded organization run by Marsy's brother, a billionaire from California. When Marsy (Marsalee Nichols) was ambushed and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983, that murdering SOB was granted bond, and was out on bond before the girl's body was even in the ground. In fact, when the Nichols family stopped by a local supermarket after the funeral, they saw him there, and he saw them. (Awk-ward !!!)
Anyhow, I object to the idea of a billionaire coming up with "his version" of a crime victims' bill of rights and then using his slick advertisements and social media promotions to shove this idea down our throats without any real debate or discussion about the pros and cons of what he came up with for details of the proposal.
I think passing this ballot initiative in Georgia in 2018 would mark us as "suckers" who will fall for anything that's presented to us by a slick ad and sympathetic pitch-man (or woman, in this case, as all the Marsy's law victims being used as examples in the ads are in fact women).
I say NO to this law as a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
However, that being said, we could use some further victims' rights laws and criminal-no-rights laws passed in the legislature, and embodied in O.C.G.A.
(If the courts find that statutory victims' rights laws are in violation of criminals rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, there's nothing we in GA can do about that. The federal constitution trumps all else, and Georgia has no power to subtract from those rights.)
The entire MARSY'S LAW initiative comes from a well-funded organization run by Marsy's brother, a billionaire from California. When Marsy (Marsalee Nichols) was ambushed and murdered by her ex-boyfriend in 1983, that murdering SOB was granted bond, and was out on bond before the girl's body was even in the ground. In fact, when the Nichols family stopped by a local supermarket after the funeral, they saw him there, and he saw them. (Awk-ward !!!)
Anyhow, I object to the idea of a billionaire coming up with "his version" of a crime victims' bill of rights and then using his slick advertisements and social media promotions to shove this idea down our throats without any real debate or discussion about the pros and cons of what he came up with for details of the proposal.
I think passing this ballot initiative in Georgia in 2018 would mark us as "suckers" who will fall for anything that's presented to us by a slick ad and sympathetic pitch-man (or woman, in this case, as all the Marsy's law victims being used as examples in the ads are in fact women).
I say NO to this law as a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
However, that being said, we could use some further victims' rights laws and criminal-no-rights laws passed in the legislature, and embodied in O.C.G.A.
The ballot initiative is very vaguely worded, but strongly biased to elicit a "yes" vote.
So it will pass easily.
But, the ballot initiative isn't the law itself. It's just the voters saying we'll go along with whatever pro-victim, anti-criminal bill has been passed by our legislature and which has caused this ballot initiative to appear on the general ballot in November 2018 for ratification by the voters.
For the actual wording of how the Georgia constitution would be changed, see S.R. 146. Senate Resolution 146 was passed overwhelmingly with great bipartisan support, including a lot of conservative, sensible, pro-gun, pro-carry Senators.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/SR/146
Now, while the wording of the amendment is fixed in SR 146, these words are still very broad and vague, subject to many differing interpretations as to exactly how to implement them and how the government, and the courts, should balance the intents and purposes of these new constitutional provisions with long-cherished and thoroughly accepted "rights" of accused persons and criminal defendants, as those rights appear in the Ga. constitution, the U.S. constitution, stautory law (O.C.G.A.), agency policy and procedure, and caselaw (prior court decisions).
But I don't see anything objectionable in the lofty goals and platitudes expressed in the actual constitutional amendment as worded in Sen. Res. 146.
So it will pass easily.
But, the ballot initiative isn't the law itself. It's just the voters saying we'll go along with whatever pro-victim, anti-criminal bill has been passed by our legislature and which has caused this ballot initiative to appear on the general ballot in November 2018 for ratification by the voters.
For the actual wording of how the Georgia constitution would be changed, see S.R. 146. Senate Resolution 146 was passed overwhelmingly with great bipartisan support, including a lot of conservative, sensible, pro-gun, pro-carry Senators.
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20172018/SR/146
Now, while the wording of the amendment is fixed in SR 146, these words are still very broad and vague, subject to many differing interpretations as to exactly how to implement them and how the government, and the courts, should balance the intents and purposes of these new constitutional provisions with long-cherished and thoroughly accepted "rights" of accused persons and criminal defendants, as those rights appear in the Ga. constitution, the U.S. constitution, stautory law (O.C.G.A.), agency policy and procedure, and caselaw (prior court decisions).
But I don't see anything objectionable in the lofty goals and platitudes expressed in the actual constitutional amendment as worded in Sen. Res. 146.
I will vote no.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah as a general rule you should ALWAYS vote no on any new law.
Thank you for taking the time to do more research. Unfortunately there is very little resistance. Vaguery is extremely bad for law and this one has too much of it. I see who supported it. How could they not. It's all positive attention for them. The complexity of opposition would never translate to make them look good. The unintended consequences will never effect them if the go along. The negativity of opposition would.
