Proposition 13, which the voters of California approved in 1978, limited property taxes to one percent of cash value at the purchase price. Another clause stated that to pass a budget and tax increase, the legislature must agree with at least ⅔ voting to approve. Some of the pros were the immediate relief it provided to homeowners upon ratification to the California state constitution. It provided a sense of predictability during the period of stagflation, and even during the housing booms and busts to subsequently follow, for residents who purchased property in years of low prices, they received the best bargain.
The proposition 13 amendment is a property tax about how taxes can’t exceed 1% of a property value. California has always had a problem with taxes due to the enormous number of illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes but use public services that are funded by taxes. This was partly solved by legalizing marijuana which made a large dent in the debt California had. Maybe these golf courses paying the correct amount of taxes would fix the tax problem altogether. Land use comes into play because everyone needs to have their property at its best use according to the taxes.
Posse Comotatus Act: 18 U.S. Code, Section 1385, an original intent of which was to end the use of federal troops to police state elections in former Confederate states, proscribes the role of the Army and Air Force in executing civil laws and states The PCA is concerned with preserving state authority (McGrane, 2010, p. 1311). According to Sean McGrane (2010), members of the U.S. military can not enforcing domestic laws if they are activated under the PCA (p. 1310). Meaning military member are not allowed to enforce any law enforcement duties once activated under PCA.
The security of Canada is an obscure term, at best, and at worst is deliberately inclusive of anything constituting political dissent. In protecting the security of Canada, Bill C-51 makes unlawful any action deemed as “interference with critical infrastructure”. Because of this addition, protesting controversial projects by blockading them would be punishable under the provisions of the act. (CBA) For example, many people protested the Kinder Morgan Pipeline by peacefully blockading sits of construction.
Current Status, Proponents/Opponents and Budget/Fiscal Impact The current status of Senate Bill 177 is active and chaptered (S.B. 177, 2013). It is currently located in the Secretary of State’s office and was last amended on August 5, 2013 (S.B. 177, 2013). It is not time limited and does not seem to have a date for review (S.B. 177, 2013). According to the Senate Floor Analyses, or the Unfinished Business Report, from September 9, 2013, the proponents of Senate Bill 177, as verified on August 9, 2013, were a total of 15 (S.B. 177, 2013, p. 3). Some of the proponents, as listed in the Unfinished Business Report, were the California Youth Empowerment Network, Hillsides and the National Association of Social Workers (S.B. 177, 2013).
The HITECH Act is a big portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that promotes the widespread adoption of electronic health records/health information technology. It was passed because of the aforementioned and it provided benefits to patients/providers alike. The ARRA itself (which, of course includes the HITECH Act) was in response to the economic crisis of 2007-2009. The HITECH Act was ultimately designed to improve safety, quality, and efficiency. By responding to the Act's incentives, healthcare organizations can have patients discharged quicker because having information through technology is quicker and easier to maintain than paper-based, there would be improved clinical outcomes, as patient quality would improve, and medical
Bill C-666 Opposition The prohibition and ban of cigarettes as suggested in Bill C-666 will significantly inhibit the economy and ruin Canadians employed by the tobacco industry. In 2014 the Canadian tobacco industry had a market value of 16.86 billion and in 1998 employed nearly 5,000 people; to abolish such a lucrative trade is nefarious. Moreover, the health risks associated with cigarettes are not pertinent to the discussion surrounding whether cigarettes should be banned. An individual retains the right to consume harmful substances at his discretion, regardless of the detriment against him.
On August 29 2015, Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau promised to fight for equality and bill C-24 if his government is elected, and I completely agree with his stance. To summarize C-24, it is a bill presented by the Conservative Party that grants the government the power to revoke dual citizenship from “second-class citizens”. Trudeau essentially stated that Canada’s strength is in its diversity and it is critical that everybody is treated equally regardless of where they were born. In addition, he states that his Liberal Party will ensure citizens will receive all rights listed under the Canadian Charter. While Justin Trudeau has made some questionable actions, I completely support his decision to repeal this bill.
Federalist 51 is a primary source from the time of the creation of the constitution. It was written by James Madison on February 8, 1788. It is an essay describing the Constitution 's usage of checks and balances system and why it was needed. At the time, the constitution was newly written. So, under the pseudonym of Publius; James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and James Jay: three federalists (people who supported the constitution and favored a strong central government with power shared between states), wrote the Federalist Papers.
In 2010, Arizona S.B. 1070 was an anti-illegal immigration law that was passed to focus on identifying, prosecuting, and deporting undocumented immigrants. Arizona’s law enforcement officials could detain anyone who was suspected of living in the country illegally. The law also made it a state misdemeanor crime to for an alien to not carry registration papers and people in the country illegally to solicit work. But, Arizona S.B. 1070 was charged with violating the federal Supremacy Clause by enacting its own immigration enforcement laws instead of following federal regulations; violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by denying minorities their equal protection of the laws; violating the 1st Amendment by scrutinizing minorities
Erb 4 In conclusion Bill C-51 is a very controversial piece of legislation and infringes on some basic rights and freedoms that us as Canadian citizens deserve such as allocating more power to police services and security institutions, raises privacy
Akinlolu Akin-Aluko Professor Glover English 1C 8th October 2017 Should DACA recipients be deported? Looking back at America’s history, there have been several occasions in which immigrants were invited into the country. The Reconstruction era and California gold rush are examples of these occasions. Immigrants have always been needed to populate the work force in order to ensure economic growth.
The purpose of Bill C-51 is to increase the security level for Canadians by improving security laws and government agency powers (Berry, 2013). At the time, the Conservative Government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, presented the legislation forward as a response to what Harper had called the threat
The controversy of open enrollment (HB-3681) in Oregon is leading to a countless number of unnecessary conflicts. According to Cascade Policy Institute, a nonprofit public policy research and educational organization that focuses on state and local issues in Oregon. States “the new law allows Oregon parents to enroll their kids in any Oregon public school district, as long as the receiving district is accepting transfers. No longer will the student’s resident school district be able to block a student’s transfer to another district ” (CPI 1). The newly formed law allowed many children such as myself to transfer schools without having to present any hardship.
Cameron Sturkie Mrs.Gallos English III Honors 4/18/16 House Bill 2 (North Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia) Since the passage of House Bill 2 in North Carolina on March 24, 2016, there has been a large amount of controversy about if the bill should be kept or repealed. One side claims that the bill is unconstitutional while the other side claims the bill protects the safety of our citizens. Each side of the argument has an equal amount of reasons to support their claim. What is the true meaning behind the passage of House Bill 2?
