Comments on: Justice O’Connor says Issue 2 “inappropriate” for Ohio Constitution

By: henri

henri — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:46:55 +0000

This is a tough one… NA, I agree that could be another attempt to lead people to the governments whims by virtue of a constitutional amendment.

On the other hand, I have to agree with the rationale that it purports to do- which is to help ensure a safe food supply. (Let’s hope)

One can never be certain what will happen down the road with any amendment or legislative action.
What we do know is unless we as citizens keep informed and involved, then the government will run rough-shod over us in perpetuity!

By: Not Again

Not Again — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:27:53 +0000

“progressive led” I meant to say.

By: Not Again

Not Again — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:24:32 +0000

This is a progressive lead attempt (also pushed by the fed gov) to give human rights to animals making farming much more expensive in order to nudge the folks toward a vegetarian diet. This is just another attempt by government to control our every activity.

By: chad

chad — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:37:42 +0000

This amendment is a sham! I am not sure about Justice O’Connor speaking out against this. I don’t recall a justice ever doing this. I am also not sure if the Ohio Surpreme Court can overturn this. If this is approved, I hope they can!

But I am inclined to believe that this will get rejected by voters! Weird amendments like this tend not to get approved by Ohioans. Remember in 1998 the amendment that would forbade Hunters to hunt Morning Doves? Remember all those ridiculous voting and SOS amendments in 2005.

By: glasscitypatriot

glasscitypatriot — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:54:35 +0000

The answer to too much democracy is not more democracy.

Justice O’Connor is correct to a point; we elect legislatures to legislate. The “people” should not be directly involved in these matters.

On a side note, the fact that we have so many laws and are continually passing more is a historical sign that we as a society are becoming evermore corrupt.

Why would we need all of these laws if we as a society weren’t in effect, rotting from the core outward?

By: LisaRenee

LisaRenee — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:53:07 +0000

That’s a good question, Ohio Insurance, it’s why some of us don’t support Issue 3.

By: Ohio Insurance

Ohio Insurance — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:56:10 +0000

So why is gambling need to be a constitutional amendment then?

By: truthseeker

truthseeker — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:32:07 +0000

Have lately heard on both radio and on another blog, discussion of why all the “constitutional amendments”. Good question, interesting discussions, and then the light bulb went off. Of course, our legislators are, in effect, hiding behind all these amendments. If the majority of voters approve one or another “constitutional amendment”, say issue 2 or the casino one (issue 3), the lawmakers have no “blood on their hands” so to speak.

In other words, they don’t have the sword of damocles (sp?) over their head from possible unhappy voters in their district. It’s ingenious (from a legislator’s point of view) – they toss all these possible “amendments” at us in the hopes of getting various issues passed, and voila… they can’t be blamed for this or that legislation.

Cowards. Sneaky cowards. (IMHO)