Neal Krasnoff writes: "Thank you for clarifying your point. Has the State Legislature ever passed any other bill containing unrelated subjects?"
Who cares? The mayor's office seems to believe that the majority of the population of this city is against the conceal carry law. I'd tend to agree. Therefore, I'd expect the administration to use any tool at its disposal to either kill the law in the courts, or exempt Minneapolis from its provisions. It seems to me you're irritated that: a) Minneapolitans do not generally agree with you on this issue and b) we might successfully use a combination of the democratic process and the courts to have our way. "If the City has a question with the merits of the law, they should address the issue based upon their status of [sic] an employer, parking lot owner, lessor, and an entity with police powers, not only addressing the alleged technical violation of the Legislature." Why? If the city can successfully deliver for its citizens by suing over a technicality, why should they not do so? It's interesting, Neal. Feel free to correct me if I have a mistaken impression, but you strike me as a Law n' Order type (I'm not referring to the television program). If that's so, why do you take so lightly the accusation that the legislature is breaking the law? Your defense of their anti-constitutional behavior to pass conceal carry seems to come down to "it's ok to steal if everyone else is doin' it." I, for one, am thrilled and surprised to hear about the one-law one-subject provision in the Constitution. In my opinion, our state would be better off if citizens of this state held the legislature to this provision by legally challenging EVERY tacked-on amendment. Why does this state need laws that cannot pass on their own, that must be slipped into larger bills? Your analogy is bunk, by the way. No one recently passed a law specifically allocating taxpayer money to abortions in this city by attaching it to an unrelated bill. It's unfortunate, because you actually raise a really good philosophical question: should we, as citizens, be forced to pay taxes for things we morally oppose? I tend to agree with you, Neal. I would love to know that none of my tax dollars went to the pentagon, new build highway, nuclear plants, coal industry subsidies, etc. Here's a creative solution: rather than tax dollars being budgeted by legislatures, let's create the budgets as taxpayers. Your yearly tax form could include an allocation sheet that would allow you to choose where your dollars go, and exempt them from projects with which you morally disagree. We could turn April 15th into a celebration of democracy - I'd love paying taxes if I knew where my money was going. Legislatures could still set how much each tax bracket pays, and could still make the laws. But we might be able to keep them from passing pork-filled omnibus bills like the current energy package. Local focus: let's start this ball rolling in Minneapolis. What's to keep us from providing people with a form along with their property tax bill that would allow them to allocate a portion of their own dollars? We could limit it to residents and small businesses, relying on the large corporate tax base for the general fund. Let's start the discussion. Robin Garwood SE Como REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
