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.
The given source proposes initiative measure No.594 regarding background checks for sales and transfer of guns. Initiative measure No.594 consists of three main part with its subparts. It includes: explanatory statement proclaiming the current law regarding gun distribution and its foreseen consequences that will apply to the current law if the measure is approved; fiscal impact statement including general assumptions, state revenue assumptions, state revenues, state expenditure assumptions, state expenditures, local government revenue assumptions, local government revenues, local government expenditure assumptions, local government expenditures; arguments against and arguments for measure No.594 coming into force. The main controversy of the document is a wobbly balance between a
This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the
Bill C-51 has been amongst the Bills that have been debated, questioned and stirred confusion for most Canadians. It was originally proposed by the Harper government only later to be adopted. In the recent Canadian elections of 2015, the liberal party expressed its concerns over the Bill and promised its people that if they come to power, the Bill will be looked upon. During their campaign the amendment of Bill C-51 was one of their major promises as they recognized the security and freedom of Canadian Rights as well as rights for the immigrants. The Bill has been controversial primarily because it is considered vague and abrupt as well as giving police forces power that may be too dangerous.
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.
president again because they have only been elected once. There have been several attempts to remove the 22nd Amendment. REASONS FOR FDR SEEKING A FOOURTH TERM, IF HIS TERM INITIATED THE DRAFTNG OF THE 22ND AMENDMENT Because the war Europe was in a terrible state, and American’s entrance into the war had begun the public did not want to have a new president in the middle of the war. The 22nd
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).
What is a doctor’s point of view? Doctor Michelle Stanford, was served as the chief resident at Children’s Hospital in Denver among many other accolades. Dr. Stanford, states it undermines the integrity of the medical profession; she goes on to quote the American Medical Association “Allowing physicians to participate would cause more harm than good, physicians assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s as healer would difficult or impossible and would pose serial societal risks.” (Prop 106 - Dr. Michelle Stanford).
Proposition 47: Is releasing petty criminals under the new Amnesty law a good decision or a potential disaster. Proposition 47 is a new law in California that has recently been introduced. This law proposes that several crimes such as, drug possession be re-classified as misdemeanors rather than felonies. This program has released thousands of prisoners out on the streets. There are two primary arguments over this law.
The exact definition of a juvenile is a “young person” who has yet to reach their 18th birthday. The average life expectancy of someone living in the U.S. is about 79 years old. Proposition 21 requires juveniles to be viewed and tried as adults, including receiving adult punishment such as a life sentence. If a juvenile receives a life sentence before they reach adulthood, more than three-fourths of their life is gone (“California Proposition 21”). Juveniles don’t even have a fully developed brain and as a result, can’t fully understand the circumstances that they find themselves in.
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.
advantage, powerful military leaders which served them nicely in the beginning battles. However motivation for equality drove the Union to victory. Although, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and pushed for the 13th amendment, which he believed was crucial for peace, he did not live to see the abolishment of racial prejudice. The 13th Amendment commands that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, exceptas a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United.
This relates to the 2nd article of the US constitution, which provides every U.S citizen with the right to bear arms. However, due to recently trending debate on gun control about increased incidences of gun violence, the topic of the right to bear arms has become somewhat controversial. The Democrats and Republicans in general, and Californian and Federal governments in specific, differ on the matter. The Democrats want more restrictions placed on the right to bear arms whereas the Republicans see these restrictions as contrary to the constitution and also as counterproductive. So, due to this conflict, in California, there exist a ten days waiting period before a person, who has applied for arms license, gets it.
Opponents of the age restrictions believe that by increasing the age required to purchase and own guns, it violated a basic right held by all Americans. A belief held by these people is, “On the other side of the debate, lawmakers… opposed the new law, saying it trampled on Second Amendment rights” (Mazzei, Patricia). The Second Amendment gives the right to all people in the United States to bear arms (guns) and by increasing the age to purchase and own guns, the law would not allow 18- to 20-years-olds to arm themselves. This would violate the basic right of all the legal and law abiding citizens that fall within this age category, who are adults in the United States. By preventing them from getting the weapons and guns they wanted, these people will not be able to protect themselves from criminals and murderers with
