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
Preventing tyranny gives people the opportunity to have some power in what decisions are being
It can do this by giving the us citizens the opportunity to voice their opinion to political officials through email, phone, fax and letter even. A full on democracy tries to make everything set and stone. With a representative, we as people, even in the minority, can still have the power to influence the representative to have our desires heard, which is fairly significant. 51% majority rule can absolutely be detrimental to someone of the lowest minority. With majority rule there can be power over the lowest class.
Brettschneider argues that judicial review can often enhance democracy by protecting the rights of minorities and ensuring that the majority does not overstep its bounds. He notes that democracy is not just about majority rule, but also about protecting the rights of individuals and minorities. Judicial review, he says, can help to ensure that these rights are not violated by the majority, and can help to prevent the tyranny of the majority that was feared by many of the framers of the US Constitution. Brettschneider also argues that judicial review can be seen as an extension of the principle of popular sovereignty, since it allows the people to hold their elected officials accountable by giving them the power to strike down laws that are deemed
The United States of America has make some amazing progress from the first 13 settlements. They began as a state represented by a Monarch from England, changed to a republic toward the begin of the insurgency and today regardless we have that republic base in our majority rules system. In spite of the fact that the way how the legislature hasn't changed much, the way how we vote does. At first just the rich and capable had the capacity vote, however in present day America, any legitimate US inhabitant of age not in jail can vote. Consistently, the general population get out and vote in favor of individuals that will attempt to would what they like to do, if not they choose someone else for the employment.
As was previously stated, it gives certain states more power and makes the votes of people in certain states worth more than a vote
Also, sought to give voters more direct control over politics. Progressive reforms fought to allow voters to propose legislation. They placed the idea of a referendum, which allows voters to vote on legislation that's on the ballot rather than letting legislators make that decision. Finally, fought and were successful
Question 2. Initiatives, referendums and recalls were devised to take power from corrupt politicians and give it back to ordinary citizens. Initiatives were a procedure by which a legislative measure could be originated by the people rather than corrupt lawmakers. Referendums were a procedure by which a proposed legislative measure could be submitted to a vote by the people. A recall was a procedure to remove a public official (politician) from office by a vote of the people.
The group’s main agenda is to get their voices heard by providing resistance during town hall meeting, applying opposition during open public events, visiting their representative local offices and demanding that meeting be held to discuss opposition to each representatives voting record and the group also coordinate calls to their representatives in order to inundate them with opposition to specific voting issues. As one can see by coordinating with others in the opposition movement to act at the same time causes an impact which their representative cannot
Progressives pursued battles over issues like government regulation of the economy and democratic reform of the electoral process. Some of them worked for women suffrage, others for temperance, and still others for immigration restriction, government inspection of foods and drugs, or the improvement of wages and working conditions. Several politicians that occupied government offices also worked to end corruption in law enforcement, public transportation and other city services. Also, political powers of the voters were increased by legislation which gave them additional powers such as recall of a person from public office before his or her term ended. Under referendum laws the voters could pass laws without the need for the state legislatures
The political debate for and against felon disenfranchisement has compelling arguments on both sides. In the US, over 6 million felons are barred from voting due to laws that prevent felons with a sentence to vote (Chung). The number of imprisoned has been growing over the past 40 years, as the increasing number of imprisoned felons is directly correlated with an increasing number of disenfranchised felons. However, a more jarring statistic reveals that most disenfranchised felons in the United States are of a racial or ethnic minority. Based on information from the 2010 US Census Bureau, about 36 percent of disenfranchised felons are African American.
They get others involved that agree with them and come forth in big numbers to present to the government. That’s their way of showing our government that we the people are unsatisfied with how something is being ran and we want change. Although we do protest, sign petitions, or spread awareness through Facebook, little to nothing ever gets done. This is going against what the Declaration of Independence was saying. According to the document, this petitioning in great numbers should veto the government’s choices.
There would be an increase of civic activity and participation. A person should have the social responsibility consider how their vote will affect the interests of a broader community to a certain extent. Citizen should act on their own accords rather than in the interest of the rest community because it is the citizen’s personal right to vote. The first amendment grants a citizen the freedom of expression which includes freely to express their own opinion or idea. But the extent is that a citizen should take in the consideration of opinions of others like a trustee because it gives the citizen a chance to see from all different perspectives which can be become useful upon making a decision, but not a better decision since there is no better candidate (it is very subjective).
