2014 Florida Amendment Voter Guide

By KrisAnne Hall, Constitutional Education & Consulting, Inc.

Introduction:

This guide is designed to inform the voter on certain aspects that I do not see being presented in other voter guides.  The voter is always ultimately responsible for their vote.  I do not take responsibility for anyone’s vote; we will all answer individually one day for our choices.  With that in mind, be sure that you VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!

As a general rule I am opposed to Constitutional Amendments, unless it is a truly Constitutional issue.  Our Constitution is supposed to be the Supreme Law of the State, establishing guidelines for government, fundamental rights belonging to Floridians, and principles by which we are to govern.  Statutes, on the other hand, are supposed to be the instrument we use to enact laws through legislation in our Republican form of government.  Florida has gotten very lazy about these distinctions.

I had hoped we had learned about cluttering up our Constitution when we passed the “pregnant pig” and the “super train” amendments.  With those two examples in mind, I would like those who view this guide to keep in mind a few things:

When you vote YES and pass a Constitutional Amendment you are creating a constitutionally protected RIGHT to something which includes the appropriate protections and assignments.

Constitutionally protected rights must be provided under equal access of the law to all citizens of the state, without discrimination.

If you vote YES, the only way to fix that amendment is through another Constitutional Amendment.

Amendment 1 Florida Water and Land Conservation Initiative:  (This amendment will add another section to the Constitution)

Amendment 1 is a very dangerous thing.  First and foremost this type of “legislation” should NEVER become a Constitutional Amendment.  We have done a great disservice to our Constitution in Florida by allowing legislative issues to pollute our Constitution.   This amendment would establish a Constitutional Right for government to expand government control over private land and increase the control of the United Nations over Florida Land.

It will remove private property rights from our land owners and transfer them to the discretion and control of environmental lobbyists.  Additionally because of the World Heritage Treaty this legislation will transfer the maintenance and control of more Florida land to the United Nations.  Very few people in Florida know that the Everglades are classified as a “World Heritage Site” placing maintenance and control of these lands in the hands of UNESCO through the World Heritage Treaty.

A World Heritage site is a geographical area that is of global environmental or cultural significance.   Declaring an area a World Heritage site establishes that governments must submit to the monitoring of these sites by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).  UNESCO then has the power and authority to seize control these sites if the World Heritage Committee determines intervention is necessary to properly maintain the sites or some “crisis” has occurred that requires intervention.  Apparently, Florida’s everglades are listed as a World Heritage site.  The Everglades are number 76 on a list of sites worldwide.  The Everglades are already classified as being in a state of crisis.  This means that UNESCO can move in at any time and force Floridians to maintain their land according to UN standards.

This piece of legislation will give MORE land to the UN via this treaty.  Something that should be noted…Florida Commissioner of Agriculture, Adam Putnam IS NOT OPPOSED to the UN taking our land.  He said this is not an issue that Floridians have control over, it is a federal issue.  Adam Putnam believes that Florida has less control over its land, than the federal government and the UN.  This mentality destructive to our Liberty and Adam Putnam is endorsing global control over Florida land.  Here are his words:

“This effort is part of the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), a federal program administered by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) that requires no state approval or acceptance.” (emphasis added)  So in Mr. Putnam’s opinion the State of Florida has no say whatsoever if the feds want to give our land to the United Nations.

For MORE EDUCATION Adam Putnam’s perspective on transferring private property to the UN please visit:

http://krisannehall.com/floridas-sovereignty-eroded/

http://krisannehall.com/u-n-aquires-more-of-the-everglades/

 A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 1 would:

•  Establish a Constitutional Right for government to expand the lands covered under the World Heritage Treaty.  That means the UN will have even more land to control in Florida.  This amendment is destructive to individual property rights and the control of Florida over its own land.

Amendment 2:  Florida Right to Medical Marijuana Initiative:  (This amendment adds another section to the Constitution)

The measure, upon voter approval, would legalize medical marijuana. Specifically, the measure would guarantee the following:

The Florida Department of Health would be responsible for regulating medical marijuana. The department would issue and regulate patient identification cards and personal caregiver identification cards, develop procedures related to medical marijuana treatment centers and institute regulations defining reasonable amounts of marijuana for medical use. The department would be required to protect the confidentiality of all patients.

Much of the opposition to this law seems to stem out of misunderstanding and fear of legalization of marijuana.  This Amendment does not legalize marijuana and is not a pathway to legalization.  It does give access to a valuable medicinal resource that has been kept from the people through improper government control and criminalization.  We already have medicinal opiates and barbiturates and Doctors prescribe them regularly.    You can buy medicinal alcohol over the counter at any drug store, just read the ingredients to any liquid cold medication.  The proven benefits of medical marijuana cannot be denied and why would a civilized society deny people medical care that can vastly improve their quality of life?

• The constitutional amendment contains six limitations on how the amendment’s language can be construed:
• The amendment does not “affect laws relating to non-medical use, possession, production or sale of marijuana.”
• The amendment does not authorize “the use of medical marijuana by anyone other than a qualifying patient.”
• The amendment does not allow for the “operation of a motor vehicle, boat, or aircraft while under the influence of marijuana.”
• The amendment does not require accommodations for medical marijuana use “in any place of education or employment, or of smoking medical marijuana in any public place.”
• The amendment does not require “any health insurance provider or any government agency or authority to reimburse any person for expenses related to the medical use of marijuana.”
• The amendment does not require “the violation of federal law or purports to give immunity under federal law.

Let’s correct some misinformation about Amendment 2: (http://bit.ly/1iMifDn)

CLAIM: In reference to the availability of medical marijuana, the website asserts “anyone who wants pot will get it.”

FACT: This is simply not true. In their decision placing Amendment 2 on the November ballot, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed that only patients with “debilitating” diseases and medical conditions would qualify for medical marijuana.

CLAIM: “Teens will be able to legally purchase pot without their parents’ consent.”

FACT: Wrong again. In order to purchase medical marijuana, you would need a doctor’s recommendation. Under Florida law, barring a few extenuating circumstances, physicians are not allowed to provide medical treatment to minors without parental or guardian consent, so this is a groundless concern.

CLAIM: Amendment 2 will lead to a “pill mill”-like scenario in Florida. “Pot docs” will “spring up next to restaurants, schools, churches and supermarkets.”

FACT: The State of Florida’s office of Economic and Demographic Research has already addressed this issue. They have said the physician examination requirement, the application process with the Department of Health, the regulatory structure that would be implemented by that same body and subsequent protective laws that may be passed by the legislature would make this scenario extremely unlikely. (See pages 10-11 of OEDR Financial Information Statement)

CLAIM: The website further contends that “felons-even drug dealers” would be able to qualify as caregivers in order to administer medical cannabis to severely ill patients.

FACT: This claim requires the reader to assume that the state will implement Amendment 2 in an irresponsible way. If the amendment is passed, the Florida Department of Health will be tasked with issuing detailed regulations regarding qualification requirements for caregivers. During that process United for Care will fight alongside any organization that, like us, is concerned about making sure nobody with a record of dealing drugs can become a qualified caregiver.

A YES VOTE FOR AMENDMENT 2 will:

• Establish a Constitutional Right for people to have access to medical marijuana if their doctor deems it to be a part of the treatment plan and follows the proper regulations established by the State of Florida.

Editor’s Note:  I suspect the regulations placed upon medical marijuana by the State of Florida will be so substantial that  it may make use of this drug unaffordable and unobtainable.   I use the laws in Washington as guidepost.  Most think that Marijuana was legalized in the State of Washington, but the regulation and taxing of the drug are so heavy that this simply is not true.  Listen here for a better understanding http://bit.ly/12pvgOA.

Amendment 3: Florida Prospective Judicial Vacancies (This amendment would amend Sections 10 and 11 of Article V of the Florida Constitution.)

Judicial appointments can only be accomplished by constitutional amendment. Currently, a justice’s term of office runs concurrent to the governors. Amendment 3 attempts to clarify the answer to the question of who appoints these vacancies if there is a change of governors at the conclusion of the justice’s term.  This amendment will allow outgoing governors to appoint judges that will sit under the newly elected governor.

Interestingly, the argument in favor of Amendment 3, as posed by Senator Tom Lee is nearly identical to the argument made by the Progressives of 1912 for the ratification of the 17^th Amendment.  His argument is that the vacancies created by retiring judges will leave the Supreme Court at a standstill.  This expediency argument is what convinced this Union that we must make our federal Senators elected by popular vote as opposed to being appointed by the State Legislators.  The result at that time was the near destruction of the Sovereignty of the States and the proper functioning of our Republic.  It concerns me that we now see this argument again, when just like in 1913, the vacancies are not really that concerning or detrimental to the entire process.  Even by Sen. Lee’s predictions, the Supreme Court will have to only wait 3 weeks from appointment to be back in session and this delay will only happen on rare occasions when justices’ retirement coincide with gubernatorial elections.  Is preventing the Supreme Court from having three weeks of down time on very rare occasions worth amending the entire constitution?  Again, it seems very questionable to me.  (See Sen. Lee’s argument: http://bit.ly/1nzEjWo)

A YES VOTE ON AMENDMENT 3 will:

• Further politicize the judiciary by making it an outgoing governor’s “legacy” for an incoming governor.
• Clarify existing constitutional language to specify that the outgoing governor appoints incoming Florida Supreme Court Justices and district court of appeal judges if a vacancy occurs at the same time as the outgoing governor’s term ends.
• The governor would be able to “prospectively” appoint judges; he or she could make court appointments where seats are vacated on inauguration day.

EDITOR’S NOTE:  I have always had a problem with governors appointing judges.   It creates a political monarchy where the political power in control dictates the decisions of the court.  I would like to see an amendment that puts the appointment of judges through the voice of the people.

© KrisAnne Hall 2014 www.KrisAnneHall.com