On Nov 25, 2003, at 8:47 AM, Garwood, Robin wrote:
Neal Krasnoff writes:
"Thank you for clarifying your point. Has the State Legislature ever passed any other
bill containing unrelated subjects?"
Who cares?
"I am shocked, shocked, to see that there's gambling going on in here."
Just wondering if it's happened before.
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.
And the injury to the citizens of Minneapolis is....what?
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.
You don't even <know> my views on the concealed carry law, only that I want to know why the City is spending
tax money on the lawsuit.
"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?
I'm so happy that the City is ensuring the peace and dignity of the residents of Minneapolis by trying to overturn a state law that allows for qualified citizens to carry a concealed handgun.
Now about those alleged daylight drug deals on Franklin Avenue....
<snip projection>
<snip>
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.
But the State Supreme Court did establish law in Doe v. Gomez, conveniently forgetting Article, Section 16 of the Constitution. My point was that it is noteworthy that a Minneapolis attorney, representing no less than fifty religious institutions; and the City, representing itself, and collectively, 382618 people, against an alleged violation of constitutional <procedure> while there is a current violation of constitutional <rights>.
Depends on your priorities, and those of the City, the City Attorney, and fifty religious groups.
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.
Paving Hennepin Avenue, IMHO, is not a valid analogy to opposing the public funding of abortions within the City.
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.
Not a bad idea at all, if it is designed as an opt-out, but I think it would fall under State, not City jurisdiction.
Neal Krasnoff Loring Park
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
