No, they are amending existing statute.
"Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Section 189.0311, Florida Statutes, is AMENDED to read..."
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
No, they are amending existing statute.
"Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: Section 1. Section 189.0311, Florida Statutes, is AMENDED to read..."
Cool.
It's not that simple. Have you read the law? I have.
I sat down and read it with my wife, the mother of our child, who also happens to be an excellent attorney and who tutors law students in conlaw. I've also read it with her dad, who was previously an elected official who has drafted legislation that has been approved, and is also an attorney in his own right; and with my father figure (uncle who raised me after my dad passed), who is also an attorney and former law school professor.
The law is overly vague, to the point of being unconstitutional and unenforceable. For example, an 18-year old (legal adult) high school senior could sue a teacher under that law, if the teacher discusses nonsexual aspects of heterosexual relationship, like going out on a date to the movies.
Beyond that, the enforcement mechanism is flawed, because it is entirely subjective, and based on the standards of a specific individual.
Now, do I think young kids need to be spoken to about sex? Not at all.
But do I think this law is completely unconstitutional: yes I do.
If you support unconstitutional laws, you are completely un-American.
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Yep…caught on a hot mic claiming they we’re gonna “stop the spread”
But I bet that didn’t make it to “all outlets”…
SpectroMagician
Well-Known Member
No you haven't explained anything at all. You have not given any actual text or example at all of how the bill that passed the senate will have no effect.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Yes, I clearly said that the poll happened.Oh, that poll happened:
Did 56% of Survey Respondents Say 'No' to Teaching Arabic Numerals?
It's difficult to answer survey questions if you don't fully understand their meaning.www.snopes.com
What I am questioning are people who "remember an actual bill" that was proposed.
It’s a political article lol
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
HB1557 does NOT ban talking about sex with 5-9 year old children in schools.
It bans any discussion regarding - very specifically - "sexual orientation and gender identity". These are qualities human beings possess, not activities that humans participate in.
Bingo
the_rich
Well-Known Member
Just looked. I believe you are right. People were for banning them because they were ignorant of what they actually are.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Why don’t you quote us the part where it amends how special districts are dissolved.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Gotta throttle back on the previous bill talk. It may be the cause of this but reedy creek is far more Disney centric
ImperfectPixie
Well-Known Member
Which is the root problem with what's going on right now. Politicians are using people's ignorance to pass discriminatory and harmful laws.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
And ones that bring back old public health problems…don’t forget that!
(Ok…I’ll stop)
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
Incorrect. The County wants its money. I guess you didn't read the article I posted in an earlier response to you that showed Disney winning a tax appeal because the County assessed some of their property at too high a level. That doesn't sound like the County is artificially deflating what Disney pays them in property taxes, does it? Quite the opposite. If the County had their way, Disney would be paying more, but property valuations have to follow a consistent formula so WDW property can't be unfairly assessed just because TWDC can afford it
The existing statute REQUIRES a vote by residents of that district to approve the dissolution of the district. If the Florida Legislature wants to by edict declare a district dissolved, then it must AMEND that section of statute by ACTUALLY AMENDING THE WORDS THAT GOVERN THE PROCESS. By striking them out.
GimpYancIent
Well-Known Member
Soooooo let me get this straight. The RCID remains until 2023 dependent on what happens between now and Monday in the House for the rest of the story. All the rest is speculation.
Because you’re derailing the conversation about the RCID and it’s possible dissolution.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's going to be so many lawsuits stemming from this legislation... and not actually to fight it, but just to get some clarity.
Does RCID exist or not? Can residents refuse to dissolve it? Are we really in the worst timeline?
Back to the Reedy Creek Improvement District so we can keep meaningful conversation about the actual topic of this thread without it being locked...