Proposed IL Amendment

[TyGuy]

Forgive me if I missed the discussion.

 

I just received a mailer about victim's rights amendment. Thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[POAT54]

Lisa's link

 

http://www.ag.state.il.us/pressroom/2014_04/20140410.html

 

http://www.myjournalcourier.com/news/home_top-news/50407269/Victims-rights-amendment-on-ballot

[TyGuy]

Unless convinced otherwise I think I'm a NO.

 

If it got through the D controlled IL legislature then it must not be good, e.g. How they blocked the Term Limits quesrion.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[markthesignguy]

There will be a bad hook hidden in there somewhere. I trust the machine as far as I can throw the planet Jupiter.

[tkroenlein]

I read the proposed language and it is just that...language.

[tkroenlein]

It's highlighted at the bottom.

 

http://ballotpedia.org/Illinois_Crime_Victims%27_Bill_of_Rights_Amendment_(2014)

[rubicon]

A good victims Rights Amendment would include an Emergency CCL Statute, that would allow victims of Stalkers, or under imminent threat to be grated a CCL by Court Order. This would include a by-pass of the three day wait to buy a Handgun for protection. I read that Wisconsin has a Law like this, for Special Cases where a persons life is in Jeopardy.

[Double-J]

Here's some info that came from the Sec of State. There are a few Proposed Amendments to the Constitution that will be on the Nov Ballot's. This scares me. If you read your Sample Ballot, it in NO WAY explains what the proposed changes are. The poor saps in the voting booth will have no idea of which way to vote on these very important issues!

 

For the Crime Victims Rights, go to bottom and read "Arguments Against the Proposed Amendment". I think I'm a YES vote for the Amendment. The first paragraph is important.

 

Scan0042.pdf

[limac333]

It passed the House 111-2, and the House 59-0.

 

Looking at the existing Crime Victim's Rights in the Illinois Constitution, the changes don't appear to be a big change, so I got no problem with it.

[1911 .45]

"Illinois is currently the only state in the nation that bars effective enforcement of victims’ rights guaranteed in the Constitution by preventing a victim from going to a higher court when those rights are denied."

 

 

 

Why am I not surprised?

[Kylar Stern]

No on both.

[Trevis]

"Illinois is currently the only state in the nation that bars effective enforcement of victims’ rights guaranteed in the Constitution by preventing a victim from going to a higher court when those rights are denied."

 

 

 

Why am I not surprised?

As they designed it... Amirite?

[Neumann]

I vote no on both.

 

The amendment to "increase" victims' rights in criminal trials imposes an unnecessary burden on the prosecution, and would delay progress through the courts. There are ample opportunities for victims to intervene in sentencing and parole hearings.

 

The second proposal on "Surrfrage and Elections" is a largely a duplicate of Federal law and the subject of many court decisions. There are hidden "gottchas" which would prevent common sense requirements for voter identification and changes to early and absentee voting, which are already subject to abuse. Anything which would make it slightly harder for one social group to vote would be prohibited. On that basis, those groups would not need a driver's license or proof of age to buy alcohol.

 

These proposals are nothing more than filler, added to crowd out meaningful proposals like term limits. The party in power has used this tactic since before Lincoln passed the bar.

[lockman]

I have a right to be a victim?

 

I don't think the constitution is the best place for this type of action.

[OldMarineVet]

I vote no on both

 

Typical liberal blather. Appears as harmless, "nice to have's" but is really covered by existing laws and/or not really needed. Since we don't know the liberal agenda, the fear of "hooks" is real. Liberals get things done in small steps. An item that appears harmless eventually gets linked with a future item that seems harmless... on and on... and eventually fulfills a goal of the objection. Also, why is all this blather in a document called a Constitution? This is how liberals get things done.

[w9trb]

I read the pamphlet that came in today's mail. The Suffrage and Elections one does not require citizenship specifically in its list of qualities that are protected. I think the Dems will come back after passage and say that since citizenship isn't listed, that it is not required. Then anyone with any form of I.D. will be a legal voter even if they aren't a citizen.

[Tango7]

I read the pamphlet that came in today's mail. The Suffrage and Elections one does not require citizenship specifically in its list of qualities that are protected. I think the Dems will come back after passage and say that since citizenship isn't listed, that it is not required. Then anyone with any form of I.D. will be a legal voter even if they aren't a citizen.

Good observation of the "what isn't stated" mentality and the dangers thereof.

[kevinmcc]

Don't vote for either.

 

The first proposal alters the right that is already on books and has a State exeption clause, which make me think the clause would exempt them from paying restitution.

The second one we already have in the US constituion with the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th ammendments.

[C0untZer0]

The democrats created a ballot crowded with nonsense and devoid of real initiatives that would rid our state of the political parasites who continue to leach off the Illinois tax payer.

 

It is smoke and mirrors to distract voters from the real problems.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-06-15/opinion/ct-illinois-ballot-election-edit-0615-jm-20140615_1_ballot-initiatives-minimum-wage-retention-judges

[GWBH]

I read the pamphlet that came in today's mail. The Suffrage and Elections one does not require citizenship specifically in its list of qualities that are protected. I think the Dems will come back after passage and say that since citizenship isn't listed, that it is not required. Then anyone with any form of I.D. will be a legal voter even if they aren't a citizen.

 

Exactly - it states "eligible to vote" - which in my take is an Illinois resident. A person can be a resident in 30 days, but it never states they must be a US citizen.

[Grayhawk]

No on both.

[Kimbergal]

I have a right to be a victim?

 

I don't think the constitution is the best place for this type of action.

x2