For the record 1. I am not against farmers:i grew up working on our family farm as did my husband. 2. I am against deceptive language proposed for any constitutions that exempts one sector from due process. 3. I am against deceptive ballot presentation that does not articulate actual language of constitution amendments being change, but rather constructs words to draw on sympathies of voters. . 4. If amendment 1 ballot language is actually about family farms then it should define family farm and family farm corporations. Rather than allowing the potential of mega and covert multinational corporations to legally abuse citizens in the future. The corporate law allows for sub corporations of foreign entities to hide ownership. 5. I am against particularly vague language in our constitution that creates multiple interpretations to flood the courts at taxpayers expense. 6. If you want to understand the real concern you must read both the ballot entry and the actual joint resolution language relevant to the Amendment 1. Constitution amendments are state law and difficult plus costly to change. If there is this much confusion as to the interpretation of the actual constitutional entry it needs to be scrapped and reconstructed. 8)Farmers currently have rights to farm. 9) If a large mega corporate farm draws down a water table on its premise and you are the smaller farmer next to him, then what? Do you have money for the legal battle, will you even know what is happening to the water table?
Posted on: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 13:15:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015