What Are The Pros And Cons Of Amending The Arizona Constitution

The pros of the recall of elected officials is that “it provides a way for citizens to retain control over elected officials who are not representing the best interests of their constituents, or who are unresponsive or incompetent” (Recall of State Officials, 2013, September 11). This gives us “we the people” an opportunity to help out our state and the citizens within it. It gives us a voice. Now why giving the power directly to the people in should regards to referendum and how will it benefit our society? Referendums allow “citizens to determine policy directions on particular issues and to make and repeal laws by a direct vote of the people” (Gallop, L., 2007). A referendum gives the people the right for constitutional change and state referendums especially when it comes to social issues. In addition, the government should give the power to the people on the right to initiative because it will benefit our society. Initiatives, now permitted by 24 states, have been particularly prominent in the West, having been utilized more than 300 times as a part of Oregon, more than 250 times in California, and very nearly 200 times in Colorado. A wide range of issues have showed up on the vote in the different states, including regulation of professions and organizations, against smoking enactment, vehicle protection rates, premature birth rights,

The 2010 Nevada referendum, commonly known as question 1, would change the way judicial elections are held in this state. Under this proposed constitutional amendment, a Commission on Judicial Selection would be created with the task of recommending candidates to the governor for the appointment of open judicial seats. After the governor appoints the candidate to that position, that candidate would have to run for a retention election in two years. If the candidate receives more than 55% of the vote, then that individual would then serve the remainder of the 6 years term with the possibility of running for another retention election assuming the candidate seeks a second term. One of the reasons that may explain why this ballot initiative was

Until 1951, there was no law restricting the number of times the president of the United States could run for office. After the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment. Since its ratification, the highly controversial amendment has survived every attempted repeal. Contemporary presidents of both parties, President Regan and President Clinton, supported repealing or modifying the amendment whereas other presidents believed a repeal would result in political stagnation. While there are certain benefits of restricted term limits, the otherwise undemocratic 22nd Amendment should be repealed.

Your blog brought up many interesting points. It seems as though you are supporting the making of an amendment to counter the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. You stated that times have changed and you are absolutely right. There are not wild animals living on the streets nor are there state militias like there were in the 1700's. However, you also talked about the conservative view that many ignorant Republicans hold. I suggest that you check out this link http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10 as it has some astonishing numbers on injury or death related incidents due to firearms. Now check out this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate. As you can see, countries with little

The United States of America was formed through struggles and the want for liberties of its people. For its people to have these liberties, the original colonies created a central government in the form of the constitution. However, the constitution was immensely broad when it came to certain topics. States began to create their own constitutions. These constitutions followed the federal standards set by the United States constitution, yet made different situations in each state clearer and gave specific instructions for certain situations. As times change with the generations, these constitutions are often updated. However, Texas has one of the longest constitutions, which has remained the same since 1876. The current argument surrounding the constitution is whether it is up to date with its amendments or if it should be rewritten.

The U.S. Constitutional Rights are laws that guarantee the basic rights for the citizens.There are twenty-seven Constitutional Amendments in total, but 10 of them represent The Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights ensures the basic individual protections such as freedom of speech and religion. The Bill of Rights became part of the Constitution in December 15, 1791 by George Mason.

The constitution is the foundation of America. It has the country’s beliefs and rights within it. In 1791, the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution because the Anti Federalists refused to ratify the constitution till the Bill was added. The Bill of Rights not only guarantees citizens rights but also it ensures a limited government. The 14th amendment was later created in 1868 which guaranteed due process of law and equal protection under the law. The Bill of Rights and 14th amendment was made in hope that the government would learn their limitations and wouldn’t interfere with a person’s rights. It was basically the rules set for the government to follow. However as time goes by, the effectiveness of the Bill of Rights has lessened.

The Department of Justice has addressed that the “SB 1070 unconstitutionally interferes with federal government's authority to set and enforce immigration policy, explaining that “The constitution and federal law do not permit the development of patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country” (“Citing”). In short terms, the state of Arizona has made up their own law in enforcing anti-immigration law and procedures that interferes with the U.S constitution. Problems have arisen due to how the SB 1070 is unreasonable when it comes to search and seizure (“Arizona's”). The law enforcer will purposely attempt to prove that the suspect is guilty of something even if it is not lack of citizenship. This law has caused court challenges. “The lawsuit states that the SB 1070 violates the supremacy clause, the first amendment to freedom of speech, amendment right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, and the equal protection clause” (“Arizona's”). This immigration law targets illegals yet the law is not quite legal

We can conclude that in order to amend the Texas constitution a proposal must be initiated during a regular session or special session of the legislator. In addition, a unanimous two-thirds vote must be achieved before an election can be held for the people to vote on the amendment. Although citizens voiced their concerns for reform of the constitution during the 1970’s only one reform attempt resulted in an opportunity for the electorate to vote. In the end the constitutional reform did not succeed because of shady tactics, specific individuals, and fear of change. The recent Supreme Court Ruling on gay marriages is an example of why the Texas constitution is to constrict and non-free flowing. Due to the fact that it is so detailed they would not of had the ability to allow gay marriages to be legal without a specific

United States v. Arizona: The Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act is Preempted and Discriminatory

On October 16th The University of Findlay hosted a platform for debate concerning the Ohio state Issue 2. Dave Butland was there representing a vote no for Issue 2 and Dave Little was there representing Ohio Taxpayers for Lower Drug Prices, or a vote yes. Many people came to the debate to learn more about Issue 2 but many people left more confused or just as confused as before. Everybody knows that state Issue 2 is very confusing and many people wanted to go to the forum to learn more about the issue. Obviously the event was a debate and the two opposing sides had different viewpoints, but the one thing they agreed on, was that state Issue 2 is confusing. If Issue 2 is passed it will require state agencies to pay no more for prescription

The proposed measure can then be submitted to the Arizona Legislative Council for review. Next, the petition is circulated to obtain the required number of signatures. The required number of signatures is based on the number of votes cast for the office of the governor. In addition, citizens have twenty-four months to acquire all signatures on the

Mark Twain stated: “It is by the fortune of God that, in this country, we have three benefits: freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the wisdom never to use either”. Perhaps this is what happened when the new law of Arizona was created. What does law means? Law is a set of rules established by a governing authority to institute and maintain orderly coexistence (Merriam Webster’s). A new law named SB 1070 has been written with hostile points that threats human rights. Thousands of illegal immigrants were force to return back to their countries. I admit that illegal immigration is a Federal Government crime, but SB 1070 is a discriminatory law against Hispanics. I believe Arizona’s Law SB 1070 should be forbidden because it only

Since the creation of the constitution in 1789, people have found ways to disobey the laws written by our founding fathers. Most crimes have punishments that give fair consequences to the misconduct of the person, but some cases prove otherwise. The Bill of Rights were created to override all other law and provide a basis for moral wrongs and rights. Each amendment was written with a purpose to shape our country and give individual citizens the rights they believed were naturally theirs. One case, taken into the hands of the Supreme Court during World War I, caused an uproar of disagreement, to whether the case was decided unfairly. To this day, the case still remains arguable to whether this individual deserved the punishment that was given.

The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Even though this amendment has been around for hundreds of years, people still argue over what it means and if it should still apply today. The two extreme sides of this argument as stated in Henry Winkler’s book are the Gun Nuts and the Gun Grabbers (Winkler 15,45). One side argues that there should not be any guns at all, and the other side argues that everyone should have a gun. This discussion has been around for decades, and I believe that it is not going away anytime soon. There are a few arguments as to why I believe that the government shall not and cannot remove guns from American citizens. First, I believe that I have a constitutional right to own firearms due to the second amendment. Secondly, everyone should not be punished for the actions of a few lawless individuals. Thirdly, the removal of firearms would be costly, hard to enforce and unlikely to succeed, and finally, gun control laws are racially motivated. Through the use of what I believe combined with historical examples, my goal is to persuade a “Gun Grabber” on why the government cannot take away my guns.