Help! Florida Voters vote YES on #2!!! Enshrine your right to hunt and fish!
- Thread starter Bobster
- Start date
Nope. I will not vote Yes on any Constitutional amendments. I always automatically vote NO... 100% of the time.
The Constitution is not for making trivial laws like legalizing pot or abortion or anything to do with hunting and fishing. This amendment process left to voters INTENTIONALLY circumvents the legislative process... which belongs in... you guessed it... the LEGISLATURE! It's THEIR fucking JOB.
I automatically vote NO on all constitutional amendments. Even the state constitution should not be subject to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
It's a matter of legal and constitutional principle for me. I will never join in with the public to amend the constitution to facilitate the passage of laws (and enshrining them in the Constitution) while abdicating the PROPER legislative process.
I'll stand by for flaming.
The Constitution is not for making trivial laws like legalizing pot or abortion or anything to do with hunting and fishing. This amendment process left to voters INTENTIONALLY circumvents the legislative process... which belongs in... you guessed it... the LEGISLATURE! It's THEIR fucking JOB.
I automatically vote NO on all constitutional amendments. Even the state constitution should not be subject to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
It's a matter of legal and constitutional principle for me. I will never join in with the public to amend the constitution to facilitate the passage of laws (and enshrining them in the Constitution) while abdicating the PROPER legislative process.
I'll stand by for flaming.
Last edited:
Mind you... I support hunting and fishing. But I'd be intellectually inconsistent if I thought the Constitution should be used to pass laws for things I support but not for things I don't support.
The Constitution should be reserved for IMPORTANT things like civil / human Rights. Right to Free Speech?? Definitely in the Constitution. Same for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
But to legalize pot?? NO. To "protect" hunting and fishing?? NO. To enshrine legalized abortion up to the full 9 months? NO.
Those are for the legislature. Furthermore, if they DO pass as an Amendment and are later opposed, it's MUCH harder to overturn those laws. If it's done in the legislature, where it belongs, then the prospect of future reversal (if desired) is better.
The Constitution is NOT the place to pass laws (by popular vote) regarding things that are not important human or civil Rights. The Constitution should be used to pump the brakes on tyranny. Not to "protect" weed or fishing.
With this constitutional approach, there is no accountability for bad laws or amendments that have negative or unintended consequences. We can't hold legislators accountable if they weren't the ones that made the law / amendment... like we can with the proper legislative process.
That's my opinion, which I realize will not be popular.
The Constitution should be reserved for IMPORTANT things like civil / human Rights. Right to Free Speech?? Definitely in the Constitution. Same for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
But to legalize pot?? NO. To "protect" hunting and fishing?? NO. To enshrine legalized abortion up to the full 9 months? NO.
Those are for the legislature. Furthermore, if they DO pass as an Amendment and are later opposed, it's MUCH harder to overturn those laws. If it's done in the legislature, where it belongs, then the prospect of future reversal (if desired) is better.
The Constitution is NOT the place to pass laws (by popular vote) regarding things that are not important human or civil Rights. The Constitution should be used to pump the brakes on tyranny. Not to "protect" weed or fishing.
With this constitutional approach, there is no accountability for bad laws or amendments that have negative or unintended consequences. We can't hold legislators accountable if they weren't the ones that made the law / amendment... like we can with the proper legislative process.
That's my opinion, which I realize will not be popular.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 12, 2022
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reaction score
- 2,265
- Points
- 128
I get your point but at the same time isn't it true democracy when the people are voting directly to make a change? There is no process (thankfully?!) where the US Constitution gets updated based on popular vote. Obviously each state is not a republic though you can argue that the counties (or parishes or whatever) are like states in the U.S so you can argue that you don't want the high population density dictating what the state does which is the risk letting people vote directly but if you take that angle then who has the authority/responsibility to change a state Constitution?. At the end of the day what rights does the legislature have? They have the authority based on the Constitution, so if the people can't change the Constitution then how do they keep the legislature in check (either by granting or rescinding authority)?Nope. I will not vote Yes on any Constitutional amendments. I always automatically vote NO... 100% of the time.
The Constitution is not for making trivial laws like legalizing pot or abortion or anything to do with hunting and fishing. This amendment process left to voters INTENTIONALLY circumvents the legislative process... which belongs in... you guessed it... the LEGISLATURE! It's THEIR fucking JOB.
I automatically vote NO on all constitutional amendments. Even the state constitution should not be subject to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
It's a matter of legal and constitutional principle for me. I will never join in with the public to amend the constitution to facilitate the passage of laws (and enshrining them in the Constitution) while abdicating the PROPER legislative process.
I'll stand by for flaming.
- Joined
- May 12, 2022
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reaction score
- 2,265
- Points
- 128
If I put on my Libertarian hat, I'd argue that fishing and smoking weed are basic freedoms (human rights?) that we all should have. Why does the government have a right to regulate either? What better place to enshrine that than a state Constitution?
We aren't a true democracy. But I know you know that.
Exactly. The same should be true for state constitutions.
None. The gov't has no Rights. The People have inalienable Rights.
The People have never been able to change the (US) Constitution. And it's intentionally VERY difficult for the gov't to amend the Constitution. Again, I believe the same should be true for a state constitution. The Constitution is NOT the place for trivial matters like fishing and smoking weed.
I would argue that neither of those are human or civil Rights. Likewise, people don't have a right to health care. Why not a "right" to a roof over your head? Food and shelter? Nothing is more essential to life than food and shelter. But there is no right to those things, either.
Again, the gov't does not have rights. They are authorized by the people to make laws in the legislature. And we have ways of redressing any grievances regarding those laws.
It's the WORST place to "enshrine" them. They are trivial matters that do not merit "enshrinement" AT ALL. They do not belong on the same mantle as Free Speech.... or protections against unreasonable search and seizure.... or the right to legal representation when charged with a crime.... and so on. Weed and fishing do NOT occupy the hallowed space of true human rights.
By your argument, the people should ALSO be able to amend / eliminate the Right to Free Speech, which IS enshrined in the Florida State Constitution. Should the people be able to rescind that with a 60% popular "democratic" vote? FUCK NO.
I don't care if 99% of the people want to amend the Constitution. The Constitution is subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.
So.... again... to argue that fishing and weed are at that same level (as Free Speech) and are deserving of being "enshrined" is frankly... well, I disagree strongly, not to mention I think it's very very dangerous, IMO. That is the job of the legislature.... for which they are accountable (to the voters).
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 12, 2022
- Messages
- 1,945
- Reaction score
- 2,265
- Points
- 128
Point and counter point. We the people give power to the Govt via the Constitution then we the people can amend what that power is. With that said, my prior comments were looking at it from the perspective of clarifying what freedom the people have (the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, the right to fish, whatever). You can choose to belittle one freedom over another if you choose, but I would argue freedom is freedom unabated. With that in mind, yeah, if we are willy-nilly updating the Constitution then we run the risk of restricting freedom too. My commentary was focused on affirming permissive statements vs restrictive.
I disagree with your assessment here -- IMHO no state in the republic can restrict beyond the U.S, Constitution - by being part of the union each state agrees to the US Constitution as a super authority and what is states. While states do restrict 2A freedoms, I argue they are unjust and Unconstitutional. So no, a state can not restrict freedom of speech any more than they can restrict the 2A or restrict the right to unreasonable search and seizure, etc.
At the end of the day you are overlooking the obvious which is the fact that there is a process to change the Constitution both US and state. In fact, the US Constitution has been changed a bit since the republic was formed. In the case of alcohol it was changed to prohibit and then back to allow. In the case of slavery it was formed to permit and later changed to not allow. It is feasible that a majority of states could vote to remove the 2A. While I think that would be totally effed up and wrong, it could happen. The Constitution could be changed to remove the electoral college and choose POTUS by popular vote.
As you argue your point on the changes to a state constitution you aren't proposing a solution. What does "difficult to change" mean? Stating the legislature control it in and of itself doesn't make it difficult. In my home state of Ohio there was a proposition to change the state Constitution to raise the % affirmative popular vote to a higher number to make a change (I voted for it, but it failed). What is the right number 51%, 60%, 75%, 80%? Somehow suggesting that a few elected representatives make that decision doesn't bode well with me. The fact that we sit near 50-50 in the Senate and float back and forth between Dem and Rep in the House suggests that as a general statement across the country we'd be playing with fire to let such a few hold so much power.
My argument isn't that fishing and weed are on the same level, my argument is that as a free people the government doesn't have a right to restrict what we do period. We've given them a construct for what they can do and if we didn't state that they can do it, then they can't. Clearly there is a lot of overreach and stepping out of said boundaries (by the deep state). Clearly too said deep state is threatened by certain people running for office.
A little back-history for you'all:
I've been recruited by my club (and the regional coordinator at the FWC--Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) to become a Hunter Safety Instructor to assist with teaching classes so the club can fulfill its "requirement" by the Seminole County Council to offer such classes for FREE to the general public. There is a great need and the FWC Field Day I attended last Saturday had 20-25 people packing our small clubhouse. The next class, and the first I will help teach in the classroom, is not until next February. As an RSO, I assisted with the gun-shooting portion of the class.
Not having a hunting license, I had to get at least the Hunter Safety Certificate to teach and I received that by Email today. The cert is then used to buy a general hunting license to which other "options" can be added such as a Migratory Bird Permit, etc. The monies collected help pay for conservation efforts. Florida's cert is honored by many other states and I would show the cert and buy the hunting license/permits from whichever state I was hunting in.
Prior to attending the class, one must complete an online course and show up with a certificate of completion. I took the NRA course which is FREE to FL residents. Why someone would not take the FREE course, I don't understand but about half the attendees took a paid version. I initially took the online course back in 2018 and took it again last month as a refresher even though while he preferred I did, the FWC guy said I didn't have to. I also attended a Zoom call (sans mic and cam) for new instructors early this month.
Hunter Safety efforts nationwide are funded by YOU every time you buy a new gun or ammo. It is called the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. An 11% excise tax is collected and states apply for their share of conservation funds dependent upon number of licensees and hours put in by staff and volunteers.
ANYHOW, at the start of the class, a couple FWC officers gave a most excellent presentation about licensure and enforcement. Public, non-hunter impression of hunters was also discussed as was the aforementioned "you better fucking vote YES on #2" Amendment. This Amendment, if adopted by FL voters, will make it harder for the c*cks*cking weenies to make a case against closing/restricting FL's MANY WMA's (wildlife management areas). Complaints by these pieces of shit are why there are no longer black bear hunts.
With all the development here, development next to/encroachment on WMAs is a big concern. BTW, FL has the largest Fish and Wildlife agency in the US as well as the most acreage of WMAs at 5.8mil acres. So why would you NOT vote to enshrine the right to hunt in the FL Constitution unless you were some kind of obstinate A-hole... Do you really want to leave WMAs only to the potheads and coat-hanger squads?
I've been recruited by my club (and the regional coordinator at the FWC--Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) to become a Hunter Safety Instructor to assist with teaching classes so the club can fulfill its "requirement" by the Seminole County Council to offer such classes for FREE to the general public. There is a great need and the FWC Field Day I attended last Saturday had 20-25 people packing our small clubhouse. The next class, and the first I will help teach in the classroom, is not until next February. As an RSO, I assisted with the gun-shooting portion of the class.
Not having a hunting license, I had to get at least the Hunter Safety Certificate to teach and I received that by Email today.
The cert is then used to buy a general hunting license to which other "options" can be added such as a Migratory Bird Permit, etc. The monies collected help pay for conservation efforts. Florida's cert is honored by many other states and I would show the cert and buy the hunting license/permits from whichever state I was hunting in.Prior to attending the class, one must complete an online course and show up with a certificate of completion. I took the NRA course which is FREE to FL residents. Why someone would not take the FREE course, I don't understand but about half the attendees took a paid version.
I initially took the online course back in 2018 and took it again last month as a refresher even though while he preferred I did, the FWC guy said I didn't have to. I also attended a Zoom call (sans mic and cam) for new instructors early this month.Hunter Safety efforts nationwide are funded by YOU every time you buy a new gun or ammo. It is called the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937. An 11% excise tax is collected and states apply for their share of conservation funds dependent upon number of licensees and hours put in by staff and volunteers.
ANYHOW, at the start of the class, a couple FWC officers gave a most excellent presentation about licensure and enforcement. Public, non-hunter impression of hunters was also discussed as was the aforementioned "you better fucking vote YES on #2" Amendment. This Amendment, if adopted by FL voters, will make it harder for the c*cks*cking weenies to make a case against closing/restricting FL's MANY WMA's (wildlife management areas). Complaints by these pieces of shit are why there are no longer black bear hunts.
With all the development here, development next to/encroachment on WMAs is a big concern. BTW, FL has the largest Fish and Wildlife agency in the US as well as the most acreage of WMAs at 5.8mil acres. So why would you NOT vote to enshrine the right to hunt in the FL Constitution unless you were some kind of obstinate A-hole... Do you really want to leave WMAs only to the potheads and coat-hanger squads?
No. The Constitution is not an affirmative document. It's a restrictive document. It restricts what the gov't can do. It does not "allow" citizens to do things.
LOL! I'm overlooking that? I previously DEFINED it. Of course the Constitution has been amended... hence the very word, "AMENDMENT." But there is a process by which that happens. In a nutshell, 2/3rds of both chambers of Congress have to approve it, and THEN 3/4 of the states have to ratify it.
Difficult as described above for the US Constitution. In the case of Florida's constitution, an amendment on the ballot needs to be approved by 60% of the voters. While not as difficult as the US Constitution, 60% is a higher bar than a simple majority of 50.1%, for example.
Fine. Then we don't need any law at all (regarding fishing), right? I'm cool with that. We shouldn't need even a license to fish. Yet, here we are. Lobsters can only be taken in a legally defined "season." That won't change. And, by the way, READ that fishing / hunting "amendment." It actually does nothing, as it specifically retains the power of the FWC to regulate hunting and fishing as it always has. No change at all. It's symbolic bullshit.
Sorry... fishing and weed are not human or civil Rights. They are not the equivalent of Free Speech, assembly, protections against search / seizure, and so on.
These proposed amendments are simply circumventing the legislative process and CLUTTERING the Constitution with BULLSHIT. And that bullshit diminishes the significance and importance of REAL Civil Rights.
Nope. I will automatically vote NO on all state constitutional amendments that do not involve actual Human Rights. On principal alone, I can't and won't agree to trivializing the Constitution by amending it to legalize fucking weed or to enshrine some false "protection" of fishing.
LOL! You can call me asshole all you want.So why would you NOT vote to enshrine the right to hunt in the FL Constitution unless you were some kind of obstinate A-hole...
READ the proposed amendment. It specifically stipulates that the FWC will retain ALL of its powers to regulate fishing. Why does a "human right" need regulation???? There should be NONE, right? Why do we need to BUY a license to go fishing?? It's ridiculous. If you get caught fishing without a license or taking a lobster out of season, you get fined, right? But that won't change with this amendment.I don't need a license or a "season" to exercise Free Speech. That's because that's an actual Right. There's no state agency regulating Free Speech. Not yet. Of course the democrats would LOVE to do that.
I might be an asshole, but I'm not an idiot.
I have a good understanding of civics and history, and I can read and understand bullshit when I see it. I swore an oath to protect the the US Constitution, and the state Constitutions are usually a redundant document that mirror the US Constitution. I swore an oath to defend the tenets of those Constitutions. Weed and fishing don't qualify as tenets of human rights... they are not on the same level as Free Speech (and the others).Why can't / won't the legislature pass a law "protecting" fishing and hunting?
Last edited:
Years ago, they had another amendment on the ballot to limit the amount of money personal injury / malpractice lawyers could make. I voted NO (of course, for all the reasons I've mentioned). My friends were aghast. Everyone hates lawyers, right? Screw them! Screw the lawyers who make all the money in the end. Right? I get it, but....
Here's the other problem with that. If we authorize the gov't to limit the income of ONE profession or group... Who's NEXT??? Be careful what you wish for, eh?
Here's the other problem with that. If we authorize the gov't to limit the income of ONE profession or group... Who's NEXT??? Be careful what you wish for, eh?
Only amendment Id vote yes on is one that makes it law that all laws are in plan english as to allow the layman to understand them.
It is impossible for anyone to know, let alone understand the language used to rule them today.
It is impossible for anyone to know, let alone understand the language used to rule them today.
Lawyers aint people. JS
That's a good point. And of course the language is intentionally confusing and therefore can be spun or argued either way as needed for the convenience of attorneys.
These guys were "gun" guys and loved what they did. Which wasn't about harassing hunters but more about educating them, giving warnings, protecting wildlife and busting poachers. Their presentation went "over" time but the discussions/participation of the class was worth it.
There ARE laws about protesters harassing hunters and that was one of the scenarios discussed with the officers. They gave one example where a hunter did not confront them, packed up and drove away far enough from them then called LEOs. The LEOs then came and arrested the "protesters". First offense is $500. I think the second is $1000...
Doctors and Lawyers spend 4 years learning a special "language". Don't they deserve extra compensation for that?
@Racer88
Look, I agree with you on the concept of rights but sometimes you gotta comply with the man... Go along to get along.
Unfortunately the Pandora's Box of Constitutional Amendment here in FL has been opened so as long as enough signatures can be forged, an amendment can get on the ballot. Then the forces that be will advertise the shit out of their side and that is how idiot amendments get into the Con. I don't think #2 is one of those idiot ams.
My contribution for Ahole song:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjeCE7dJUvk
Look, I agree with you on the concept of rights but sometimes you gotta comply with the man...
Go along to get along. Unfortunately the Pandora's Box of Constitutional Amendment here in FL has been opened so as long as enough signatures can be forged, an amendment can get on the ballot.
Then the forces that be will advertise the shit out of their side and that is how idiot amendments get into the Con. I don't think #2 is one of those idiot ams.My contribution for Ahole song:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjeCE7dJUvk
It's just not in my DNA to go along to get along. I'm a natural non-conformist. And I'm also prone to looking into things for myself... do my own reading and research, rather than just accepting the narrative from the talking heads.Look, I agree with you on the concept of rights but sometimes you gotta comply with the man...
In the end, I have to be true to myself and to my word. If I go along to get along, it makes me a FRAUD.
Yep.... and I cannot be a part of it or "go along to get along." Nope. It goes against fiber in my being. The downside is that some people... many people... don't like that. So, they "unfriend" me. I think that's terrible. But ultimately I'm OK with it. I accept it as the cost of being principled.Unfortunately the Pandora's Box of Constitutional Amendment here in FL has been opened so as long as enough signatures can be forged, an amendment can get on the ballot.
When I left Facebook because of the gov't censorship, my friends begged me to ignore it and just stay on for the photos of kids and vacations, etc. They asked me to "go along to get along." Nope. If I do that, everything I've ever said... every principled stand I've ever claimed... is bullshit. It makes me a fraud. I can't do that. I have to look at myself in the mirror.
Last edited:
LOL! Well, it takes one to know one!I'll still be your friend no matter how much of an Ahole you are...