That Being Said . . . Not In Montana’s Response

This is the best one yet.

I hereby admit that I ripped this off from the brief, and I love it.

****************************

“Expressed in a different way, all of its [CI-97] components are not necessary to its primary purpose.

• It may be possible to enact a spending limit. CI-97, sections 1, 2, 3.

• It may be possible to enact a voter referendum as an override to the spending limit. CI-97, section5.

• It may be possible to enact one or more exemptions to the spending limit. CI-97, section 6.

• It may be possible to give courts of competent jurisdiction the authority to amend the Constitution by adding other revenue sources or expense categories to exempt categories. CI-97, section 7.

• It may be possible to give anybody living or doing business in Montana standing to enforce the spending limit and to award him or her his or her costs and attorney fees if successful. CI-97, section 8.

• It may be possible to specify how courts are to interpret the spending limit. CI-97, section 9.

It is just not possible under Article XIV, section 11 and Marshall to do all of these things in a single amendment on the basis of a single vote.”

****************************
There are many other wonderful, pertinent and intelligent points in the Respondent’s, Not In Montanas, Brief, but the above sums it up nicely.

Each of the points can be voted on separately, and despite what the Proponents say, (that they must be voted on as a whole), think about it. We presently have a spending limit build right into our Constitution.

• So, I think that the State should be able to override the budget in the Constitution in the case of a Natural Disaster, and allow us to go into a little debt to fight some massive wild fires, so in 2008, I propose an initiative to that effect.

• I am feeling ambitious in 2008, so I also propose an initiative allowing anyone doing business in Montana to be able to sue the state to enforce the spending limit already in the Constitution.

• By 2010, having gained confidence in my last two initiatives passing, I tackle a bigger issue. I think that we should exempt certain categories of spending from the spending limit in the Constitution. I think that Education, Healthcare and ummm . . . Tax Rebates should be protected from the spending limit. So that is 3 initiatives, wow I am good at this initiative stuff.

• Well by 2012, things aren’t working out quite as I expected, so I propose 2 more initiatives. One that says judges from courts of competent jurisdiction can add spending and revenue categories, and one that says how courts should interpret the spending limit. Well I lose out on this one, apparently, allowing Judges to insert things in the Constitution is frowned upon in Montana, not to mention being illegal. Dang it, I wanted that one. But Montanans are in favor of restraining growth in the spending limit, so they pass that one.
****************************

Get it yet? These are SEPARATE INITIATIVES. I am currently blue in the face, and while it compliments my eyes, I don’t like walking around looking like a Smurf and trying to coordinate my outfits to match.

CI-97 is nothing but bad news. Logrolling, multiple changes to the Constitution, signature gathering fraud, and back by out of state money and thought.

If you vote for CI-97, you are voting for every single amendment to the Constitution. Every one. And in my opinion, are a person who spits on the Constitution and the protection of Montanan’s rights written into it. You are someone who condones fraud, someone who believes that there is no need for single amendment initiatives, and someone who doesn’t know how to think for themselves. I have no respect for you.