Disney Insists on Train Stop

[MFLetou]

Well maybe he was saying that you are only stupid if you voted FOR the amendments

Does make you wonder though--I know a few folks for voted for Jeb and also for the classroom initiative, which McBride made a centerpiece of his campaign and which Jeb was against (and pretty much hinted that if he was reelected and the classroom thing passed, it still wouldn't happen). There does seem to be a disconnect...

 

[daniam2188]

Originally posted by jmarc63
But in the 30 years since WDW opened and with Sea World, USF/IOA and the others. Disney is not the king of Orlando anymore it seem. Tourists come to Orlando for other Attractions these days for other than WDW.

yes ppl come to orlando for other than wdw but what you are failing to realize that places like usf/ioa/bush gardens copy disney all of the time. disney first built pleasure island. years lator universal realizes how much money that makes and they built city walk. this is just one of teh many examples of parks copying disney. i think that if they cannot start coming up w/ their own ideas their guests will stop coming.

 

[JeepGuy77]

its hard for locals to think. if they are local they probably are one of the following:

A. not going to live much longer to personally benefit from development.
B. a Florida public school graduate

dont get me started on the FCATs. LOL

I'm from NY if anyone was wondering. heheh.

 

[NakedMickey]

Yeah the FCAT is the most sorry excuse for a test ever. I had to take it and it wasn't hard but the teachers just stessed everyone out and made such a big deal out of it that it became every class became the FCAT class instead of an actual subject.

 

[mkepcotmgmak]

i hate that for MEARS transportation...

 

[Bagheera]

Originally posted by imagineersrock
.....ooooooooh he's a good one! we need more of these kinds of thinkers down here!!! just show me where to sign- 'cuz i vote yay!!!

-p.s. one thing though, this better be on those new electronic ballots, because you know how things go with those paper ones down here...

-i just want to add, i've never called anyone stupid just because of where they are from and truly hope you can do the same from now on,

thanks,
-alex

Actually, Alex, if you notice, I specifically did NOT call anyone stupid. I just said that "Floridians have no idea what should and should not be part of a constitution and what should be law." This neither overtly says that Floridians are stupid nor does it imply that Floridians are stupid. It just says that they do not understand what constitutions are and what they should and should not contain. I would daresay that there are many people in many other states that fit the same category. It's not necessarily intuitive. However, there should at least be a critical mass of people within a state to understand the import of making a constitutional amendment and how it differs from making a law. Of course, if people understand the difference and still don't care about misusing constitutional amendments, then there are other choice terms that I'd put into use. Just my 2 cents.

Mark

 

[niteobsrvr]

Originally posted by Bagheera
Actually, Alex, if you notice, I specifically did NOT call anyone stupid. I just said that "Floridians have no idea what should and should not be part of a constitution and what should be law." This neither overtly says that Floridians are stupid nor does it imply that Floridians are stupid. It just says that they do not understand what constitutions are and what they should and should not contain. I would daresay that there are many people in many other states that fit the same category. It's not necessarily intuitive. However, there should at least be a critical mass of people within a state to understand the import of making a constitutional amendment and how it differs from making a law. Of course, if people understand the difference and still don't care about misusing constitutional amendments, then there are other choice terms that I'd put into use. Just my 2 cents.

Mark

Constitution: the basic principles and laws of a nation, state, or social group that determine the powers and duties of the government and guarantee certain rights to the people in it
-Websters

I would classify transportation as a duty of the government. So I don't beleive it is so far fetched to have high-speed rail as an amendment. The only thing I would consider is that using the words high-speed may have been to specific. Possibly the amendment should have been more general.

Perhaps, The state is hereby charged with providing for sufficient means of mass transportation so as to enhance the lives of the state's residents as well as continue to promote intrastate as well as interstate commerce. This should be acheived by the technical and mechanical means deemed appropriate for each area being evaluated.

From there we could go on to specify funding means and areas to be addressed.

By the way, I see prohibition as a less likely candidate for an amendment than transportation. However, our citizenry didn't see it that way eary last century.

 

[MFLetou]

Although this particular thread is fast turning into civics, thats ok, its relevant to this topic.

Specific appropriations do not belong in Constitutions. Period. This is not Britain. Over there, they pretty much have one big long document that they keep adding to which contains all their laws. Here, we do it differently. We set our goals and principles in our Constitutions, and then we have laws to carry them out. Clearly, something like a high speed rail initative, or something relating to pigs testing or traps or whatever is a specific appropriation, not a general principle.

Perhaps the bigger issue here is how easy it is to get items like this on a referendum. Different states have very different thresholds--some need the approval of the legislature, some need a proportionally high number of signatures than others, excetera. The ballot initiative itself was first discovered mainly by conservative groups, who made it legendary with things like California Prop 187 on funding for illegal immigrants, and 209 on preferences. Lately, though, liberal groups have been using it with more and more success (classrooms, euthanasia in the Northwest, etc). Just a little background.

Perhaps Florida needs to raise its threshold for getting these types of things on the ballot.

 

[niteobsrvr]

Originally posted by MFLetou
Although this particular thread is fast turning into civics, thats ok, its relevant to this topic.

Specific appropriations do not belong in Constitutions. Period. This is not Britain. Over there, they pretty much have one big long document that they keep adding to which contains all their laws. Here, we do it differently. We set our goals and principles in our Constitutions, and then we have laws to carry them out. Clearly, something like a high speed rail initative, or something relating to pigs testing or traps or whatever is a specific appropriation, not a general principle.

Perhaps the bigger issue here is how easy it is to get items like this on a referendum. Different states have very different thresholds--some need the approval of the legislature, some need a proportionally high number of signatures than others, excetera. The ballot initiative itself was first discovered mainly by conservative groups, who made it legendary with things like California Prop 187 on funding for illegal immigrants, and 209 on preferences. Lately, though, liberal groups have been using it with more and more success (classrooms, euthanasia in the Northwest, etc). Just a little background.

Perhaps Florida needs to raise its threshold for getting these types of things on the ballot.

Can you explain then, why the U.S. Constitution contains amendments that have specifics? The basic prinicple were laid out in the original document. Was that not sufficient? Every Admendment was specifically about something which could have just as easily been handled by a Federal law from your viewpoint.

By the way, do liberal groups have less rights than conservative groups to push through their views by whatever means available to them?

 

[MFLetou]

No, of course liberal groups don't have any "less right" than conservative groups. Where did you get that from? Did I say that? I was merely outlining what the trend has been over the past few decades when it comes to propositions.

There is nothing wrong with an amendment to a Constitution having specifics (ie, who can vote, who is responsible for what, etc.) What I'm talking about is specific APPROPRIATIONS. I am not aware of any specific project being mentioned in the US Constitution. With this train amendment, we are talking about a specific way to spend money. This is something that the legislature is responsible for, but because of the ease of referendum and the fact that they couldn't get the legislature to do it, they went around that process and did this instead, and this is the result--total confusion.

Let me give you an example--if you wanted to amend the Constitution to say that it is the right of every Floridian (or even anyone visiting Florida) to have public transportation available to them , to help the environment or to make it easier to get around or for whatever reason, than to me that's fine. This is the equivalent of saying that there shall be a highway built that goes from here to there, or a bus line, etc. There's a big difference.