George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 as published on the Mount Vernon Website:

 

 

 

Thanksgiving Proclamation of 1789 – President George Washington:

By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor– and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be– That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks–for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation–for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war–for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed–for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted–for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions– to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually–to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed–to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord–To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us–and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington

Whitaker is Correct & The Liberal Law Professors are Wrong

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Just in case you were wondering, here are the facts that prove acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker is correct and the liberal law professors are wrong.  During a September 2013 campaign speech, Interim US Attorney General Matthew Whitaker made some very bold comments that have the federal supremacists in defensive battle mode.  Whitaker said,

“Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?”

“The federal government’s done a very good job about tying goodies to our compliance with federal programs, whether it’s the Department of Education, whether it’s Obamacare with its generous Medicare and Medicaid dollars and the like,” he added. “But do I believe in nullification? I think our founding fathers believed in nullification. There’s no doubt about that.”

A federal supremacist at University of Texas, law professor and CNN contributor Stephen Vladeck, according to an article on CNN by Andrew Kaczynski, calls Whitaker’s statements “irreconcilable not only with the structure of the Constitution.”  Interestingly this federal supremacist attitude is not supported by the chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court even when he declared the mandate to be a tax.  John Roberts, writing for the majority in the first Affordable Care Act opinion, NFIB v Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) confirms Whitaker’s understanding of the State’s authority to nullify Obamacare.  As a matter of fact, Roberts gives the States a directive to nullify Obamacare if they did not want to “embrace” these policies as their own, citing Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 482 (1923), as his agreeing precedent.

“In the typical case we look to the States to defend their prerogatives by adopting “the simple expedient of not yielding” to federal blandishments when they do not want to embrace the federal policies as their own. Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 447, 482 (1923) . The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.”

This is the same reasoning SCOTUS used in Mack, Printz v US, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), when it decided against the federal government and certain Brady Bill provisions. The court quotes James Madison in Federalist #39:  “[T]he local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere.”  Using Madison’s reasoning, the court then concluded, [t]his separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty.”  The sphere’s Madison and the Court where speaking of are those that are clearly outlined in the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment.

If powers are not specifically delegated to the federal government they are reserved to the States.  When power is reserved to the States, as James Madison said, the “States have the right and are duty bound” to defend that sphere.

Federal supremacist Stephen Vladeck continues his criticism of the principle of Nullification by saying that Nullification is contrary to the text of the Constitution itself, citing the Supremacy Clause of Article VI, which he claims “not only makes federal law supreme, but expressly binds state courts to apply it.”  Since Mr. Vladeck is a professor one would have to assume that he can read.  It then leads this author to the inevitable conclusion that Vladeck must be intentionally deceiving his readers by not accurately quoting the text of Article VI clause 2.  To clear up the confusion laid before us by Vladeck, and in full disclosure let’s just look at this clause in its entirety:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

A simple, elementary reading of this clause indicates Vladeck’s deception.  This clause does not make federal law supreme.  Quite to the contrary, it makes the Constitution supreme and places all other laws beneath it.  According to the Supremacy Clause not all federal laws are supreme, only those laws that are made “in pursuance to the Constitution.”  When federal laws are not made in pursuance to the Constitution, those laws are not supreme, and as this language of the Constitution asserts, the Judges in every State are NOT bound by them.  Time and again, the drafters of this clause make this principle abundantly clear.  Here are just two examples:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.

No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78

“…the power of the Constitution predominates. Anything, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.”  James Wilson Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787

Andrew Kaczynski, comments in apparent shock that Whitaker would refer to the courts as the “inferior branch of the federal government.”  Apparently he has never taken the time to read how the courts were formed and the purpose and limit to judicial power as described by the people who created this branch of government.  One statement made by Alexander Hamilton should help us to see that once again Whitaker is right, and the federal supremacists are wrong:

“This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…” Federalist #78

Hamilton’s comments were one of concern that the judiciary being the weakest branch would need to be supported by the people to ensure that it was not abused by the other two branches.  Whitaker’s statement about the judiciary being the inferior branch of the federal government should not be shocking to the American people, it should be, as Hamilton identified it, “incontestable.”

These federal supremacists, when attacking the Constitution’s foundational principles will always revert to a common fallacy of logic to appeal to the emotion of the people by name-calling and labeling.  In this particular context, the popular fallacy implied by both Vladeck and Kaczynski is that people who support Nullification are racists and that the principle of Nullification was a racist tool used in the Civil War to protect the institution of slavery and in the Civil Rights movement to oppress blacks.  Calhoun’s defense of nullification and Mississippi’s resistance to Brown is selectively highlighted to drive home their point.  Yet they also have to selectively OMIT the use of nullification by abolitionist States to defy federal laws of the fugitive slave act and to ignore the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dred Scott that men were property.  Without Nullification by these abolitionist States, the federal government, with the full support of the Supreme Court would have protected the institution of slavery and defied the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that “all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…” We are supposed to accept that the misuse of a principle makes the principle itself invalid (Sounds a great deal like the anti-gun argument.)  They also selectively omit the use of nullification to defy federal marijuana laws, and federal laws banning gay marriage. AND they don’t seem to want to talk about the MISUSE of nullification by California to defy the Uniform Rules of Naturalization because THAT misuse of nullification is SUPPORTED by these leftists who want non-citizens to live off of tax-payer benefits and vote in elections.

CNN’s legal analyst, Michael Zeldin attempts to deny these facts by claiming that the principle of Nullification is “purely political.”  That is an interesting comment considering that every claim this article levels against Nullification is purely political and not legal.  The drafters of the Constitution asserted time and time again that unconstitutional federal laws were “null and void,” and that they were “no law at all.”  Who can claim, with any semblance of legal reasoning that a law that is null and void, that carries the weight of no law at all, should bind anyone, anywhere?   Therefore the justification for anti-nullifiers is purely political.  The purely political nature of these supremacist, anti-nullifiers is supported by the reality of their hypocrisy mentioned above.  Whitaker makes the statement that States can and should nullify “Obamacare” and these supremacists lose their ability to reason.  However, when States assert that they do not have to follow the federal Uniform Rules of Naturalization, or do not have to recognize federal marijuana laws, these political activists disguising themselves as “legal analysts” or “professors of the Constitution” all fall silent.  Yes, federal supremacy has to be purely political because it has no factual or historical foundation in America or the Constitution.

Finally, CNN’s federal supremacists, as do most federal supremacists, assert a final defense to their indefensible argument of complete federal supremacy by raising aloft the standard of judicial idolatry, namely a distortion of Supreme Court Opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803).  Sadly, we have are so far removed from this opinion written in 1803, by Chief Justice John Marshall, I wonder if any modern law professor, pundit, or analyst has actually read the case.  I believe the overwhelming majority have simply read and accepted the summary and definition provided to them by some modern law book.  Once again, actually reading the case affirms the supremacy of the Constitution and the invalidity of laws made by Congress that are inconsistent with that document.  Here is a small sampling:

 “The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.

This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.

If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137, 177 (1803) (emphasis mine).

Marbury v. Madison does not deny nullification.  It does not deny the State’s authority to be an essential check and balance to unconstitutional federal power, to guard Liberty and protect their sphere of power.  Considering both the Kentucky Resolution of 1799 and the Virginia Resolution of 1800, the fact that this court is actually glaringly silent on the question of nullification, says to the people that nullification was not contradicted by this court.  Marbury did, however, incontestably establish the Constitution as supreme over federal laws.  It did not establish the court’s power to be the ultimate arbiters of the Constitution.  It did reaffirm the court’s duty, as established by the creators of the Constitution, to be a check on the legislative branch using the Constitution as the standard.

When supremacists like Vladeck, Zeldin, and their ideological kinfolk in the law schools & think tanks say “all federal laws are supreme,” when they declare the federal government through their courts to be “the ultimate arbiters” of the Constitution, they are not only operating contrary to the language of the Constitution itself, but contrary to Marbury v Madison which they have reshaped into their own image.  They are asserting a gross and absurd reality that denies not only the words of the Constitution, the tenor in which it was written, but they are also declaring the people of America are not free, but mere subjects to an oligarchy of their choosing; today the legislature, tomorrow the judiciary.  Who rules, to them, is merely dependent upon which political tribe happens to hold power.  Their assertion of arbitrary power is so radical and so contrary to the principles of Liberty, it is no wonder they have to resort to label-lynching and fallacies of logic.  They have no basis in fact or history, so they want to scare and intimidate every American from learning the truth.

This political bullying will only stop when the people learn truth and those who know truth are no longer afraid to speak it out loud, just like Mr. Whitaker.  I applaud Matthew Whitaker for his statements.  I just hope he has the courage to live up to his convictions and not be bullied by the tired accusation of being racist simply because political loyalist are afraid his action may support the big orange boogeyman that they all love to hate.

 

2018 Florida Constitutional Amendment Voter Guide

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Constitutional Education & Consulting

www.KrisAnneHall.com

 

Introduction:

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, meaning it concerns a fundamental right or the structure of government.  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 and as ignorance of the principles of representative government increases, we devolve further toward a pure democracy – a form of government that is destructive to the rights and liberties of the people.

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 or a legally required mandate with which those in government must comply.

Constitutionally protected rights must be provided under equal access of the law to all citizens of the state, without discrimination, and denies any excuse for deprivation.

If you vote YES and later realize that there are unforeseen negative consequences, the only way to fix that amendment is through another Constitutional Amendment.

The amendment process represents a great expense to the taxpayers.   Laws should be passed by LEGISLATORS and put into statutes.  That is how Republican Governments work.  Repealing or amending statutory laws are part of the everyday legislative process.  If legislators forget to put something in a law or the law turns out to be a bad idea, the legislators simply amend or repeal the law through proper legislative measures.  The Constitution provides the basis for the Legislature to create these laws consistent with the Constitution with language such as “The Legislature may, by general law, enact…”

NEARLY EVERY ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS ON THIS BALLOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESERVED TO STATUTORY LAW AND NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Why would our legislators want to use the amendment process rather than the proper legislative process? In some of these instances, they tried the legislative process, but the legislation failed.  As a result, they are cluttering up our Constitution to compensate for failed legislation. Perhaps in other instances, by enacting a law through the constitutional amendment process, they can mitigate their responsibility for the law; after all, it was the “will of the people.”  Our legislators need to be reminded are a republic, not a democracy.

If the Legislators insist on using the amendment process instead of the proper legislative process, I frankly see very little need to continue having legislators.  We could simply move to a pure democracy, fire all those who feel too burdened to do their job and save some money.

 

2018 Florida Constitutional Amendment Voter Guide

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Constitutional Education & Consulting

www.KrisAnneHall.com

 

The purpose of this guide is to inform the voter.  I am not telling you how to vote, but this is how I will likely be voting.  You may have a sincere and honest disagreement with my reasoning, vote in a way that your conscience is clear.

Amendment 1	NO	Taxation is a legislative issue not a constitutional one. Legislators should be forced to do their jobs.
Amendment 2	NO	Taxation is a legislative issue not a constitutional one. Legislators should be forced to do their jobs.
Amendment 3	NO	This amendment supports a pure democracy rather than the representative government that is the foundation of Florida.  Legislators who bow to special interests should be removed from office.
Amendment 4	YES	This is a constitutional step in the right direction to restore sanity to the criminal justice system and ensure punishment fits the crime rather than creating lifelong second class citizens.
Amendment 5	???	This amendment is a constitutional matter.  My concern is that we do not have a problem with how taxes are passed.  We have a problem with the legislators who are passing them.  Is Amending the Constitution the proper solution? I am undecided.
Amendment 6	NO	Amendments should not be bundled together
Amendment 7	NO	Amendments should not be bundled together
Amendment 9	NO	Amendments should not be bundled together
Amendment 10	NO	Amendments should not be bundled together
Amendment 11	NO	This Amendment should not be bundled and 3rd portion is an atrocious affront to Liberty
Amendment 12	YES	This is a constitutional matter governing the function of constitutionally created officers. Legislators becoming lobbyists creates a serious conflict of interest.
Amendment 13	NO	I do not believe in constitutional prohibitions on private enterprise.

 

Amendment 1  Homestead Exemption Increase Amendment (2018) (This measure would amend Section 6(a) of the Constitution add another section to the Constitution – Article XII

Amendment 1 exemplifies the argument against legislation through constitutional amendments.

Because this taxation clause is in the Constitution, every adjustment that needs to be made hereafter, will have to be made by an Amendment to the Constitution.  The principle of taxation, from the foundation of America was an element of government to be managed through representation.  Our legislators have altered the way our system is supposed to work and one can only assume this is to avoid accountability and responsibility.  I can only suspect that this must an amendment that some politician will take credit for in order to curry favor with voters.  Taxation is not to be handled by “majority” vote but through equal representation.  When the majority can vote to tax the minority, there is no equal application of government and no property is secure.  All taxes sources should be handled through the legislature and local municipalities.

A YES VOTE FOR AMENDMENT 1 Would create a Constitutional Mandate:

For exempting the assessed valuation of homestead property greater than $100.000 and up to 125,000

Full Text of the Amendment:    https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_1,_Homestead_Exemption_Increase_Amendment_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 2. Permanent Cap on Non-homestead Parcel Assessment Increases Amendment (2018) (This amendment will add another section to the Constitution – Article X section 29)

Author’s Note: Again, Amendment 2 exemplifies the argument against legislation through constitutional amendments.  If our Florida legislators were maintaining their responsibility to represent the people of Florida in a functional Republic, this would be handled through proper legislative procedures and not through Constitutional Amendments. This amendment was added in 2008 and with a sunset provisions and now seeks to be made permanent.

A YES VOTE FOR AMENDMENT 2 Would create a Constitutional Mandate:

• For the legislators to make a permanent cap of 10% on the annual non-homestead parcel assessments. The 10% cap on this assessment is set to expire on January 1, 2019.
• This issue would never again come before the people for review- whether to increase or decrease, unless brought up individually as a new constitutional amendment ballot measure.

 

Full Text of the Amendment:    https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_2,_Permanent_Cap_on_Nonhomestead_Parcel_Assessment_Increases_Amendment_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 3 Voter Approval of Casino Gambling Initiative (2018) (This amendment will add another section to the Constitution – section 29 of Article X)

Author’s Note  This is an example of the legislators driving the system away from representative government toward pure democracy because of their decisions to serve the interests of big-money lobbyists instead of the interests of the people. When legislators are more responsive to special interest than to the voters, then the voters lose faith and  feel that they must take matters into their own hands, thereby eroding the representative system.

A vote YES on Amendment 3 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

• For casino gambling only to be authorized through citizen initiatives (requiring 60% voter support) and not by the legislature

Full Text of the Amendment:      https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_3,_Voter_Approval_of_Casino_Gambling_Initiative_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 4 Voting Rights Restoration for Felons Initiative (2018) (This measure will NOT add another section to the Constitution.  This measure will amend section 4 Article V)

This is one of the few measures on this ballot that could truly be classified as a Constitutional issue.  Most Floridians do not understand the extent of the classification of “felon” in Florida and the long-term ramifications for this overused classification.  This practice is particularly egregious when non-violent crimes result in stripping away someone’s fundamental rights.  For example, in Florida someone can be a convicted felon for driving with a suspended driver’s license 3 or more times.  Most people would reasonably agree that such a crime does not warrant the permanent loss of civil rights.  This amendment would be a step in the proper constitutional direction for all Floridians.  This amendment would not preclude other advancements for the restoration of civil rights in the future.

A vote YES on Amendment 4 Would Create a Constitutional Right:

• For citizens convicted of certain felonies to have their voting rights restored after a certain period of time.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_4,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Felons_Initiative_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 5 Two-Thirds Vote of Legislature to Increase Taxes or Fees Amendment (2018) (This measure will add another section to the Constitution; Section 19, Article VII)

Amendment 5 concerns the structure and operation of government and therefore addresses a Constitutional, rather than legislative issue. The amendment would set the legislative bar higher by requiring a supermajority vote (two-thirds) in both houses in order to increase taxes.  As of 2018, fifteen (15) states require a supermajority vote for at least some statewide tax increases, and one state (Colorado) requires voter approval for tax increases. This section is referring to tax increases at the state level and does not include requirements for local tax increases.

A vote YES on Amendment 5 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

• That all state level tax increases must be passed by a super majority of 2/3 thirds of both houses of the Florida Legislature.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_5,_Two-Thirds_Vote_of_Legislature_to_Increase_Taxes_or_Fees_Amendment_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 6 Marsy’s Law Crime Victims Rights, Judicial Retirement Age, and Judicial Interpretation of Laws and Rules Amendment (2018) (This measure will add another section to the Constitution; a new section to Article XII.  The measure will also amend section 16 Article I & sections 8 and 21 of Article V)

This measure would:

• add specific rights of crime victims, together known as a Marsy’s Law, to the Florida Constitution;
• increase the judicial retirement age from 70 to 75 years of age; and
• prohibit state courts from deferring to an administrative agency’s interpretation of a state statute or rule in lawsuits.

Author’s Note: While a citizen group or the legislature is required by law to keep the amendments single-issue, the Constitution Revision Committee is allowed to disregard this sound and sensible principle and “bundle” amendments to require the voter to give a single answer to multiple, unrelated propositions.  In a State that operated by any semblance of reason, these should be 3 separate ballot measures.  To bootstrap these topics about which the voter could have three distinct opinions, into one ballot measure simply because they are all “judicially” related is at best lazy, at worst a lawless disregard of the public trust.  If one is in favor of codifying the rights of victims, why should one also have to agree to increase the retirement age for judges to 75? The third provision requires judges hearing an administrative action to interpret a state statute “de novo” or “afresh” instead of deferring to executive agency interpretation. No option is given for a judge to look to legislative intent, which is in fact the American legal standard. “De novo’ can be thought of as “make it up as you go along.” Makes you wonder why we would bother with writing laws at all.

Again, it is unclear why these unrelated issues should be combined into one measure.

A vote YES on Amendment 6 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

• To establish a list of specific victim’s rights added to the Florida Constitution
• The retirement age of judges be raised to 75 years.
• Prohibit State courts from deferring to administrative interpretation of a state statute or rule on lawsuits, functionally putting the courts in the roll of the legislative body.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_6,_Marsy%27s_Law_Crime_Victims_Rights,_Judicial_Retirement_Age,_and_Judicial_Interpretation_of_Laws_and_Rules_Amendment_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 7 First Responder and Military Member Survivor Benefits, Supermajority Board Votes for College Fees, and State College System Amendment (2018)  (This measure will add another section to the Constitution; a new section to Article X.  The measure will also amend sections 7 & 8 Article IX)

This measure would:

• Require employers to provide death benefits, as the state legislature defines, to the surviving spouses of first responders while engaged in official duties;
• Require the state to provide death benefits, as the state legislature defines, to the surviving spouses of active-duty U.S. Armed Forces members who are accidentally killed or unlawfully and intentionally killed;
• Require a nine-member vote of the board of trustees and 12-member vote of the board of governors to increase a college fee; and
• Place the current structure of the state’s system of higher education in the Florida Constitution.

Author’s Note: While a citizen group or the legislature is required by law to keep the amendments single-issue, the Constitution Revision Committee is allowed to disregard this sound and sensible principle and “bundle” amendments to require the voter to give a single answer to multiple, unrelated propositions.  In a state that operated by any semblance of reason, these would be separate amendments.  For example, if I am in favor of providing more benefits to first responders & veterans, why should I also have to support a constitutionally mandated change in collecting college fees & incorporating the current structure of colleges into the Constitution?

1. The issue of tax payer benefits to first responders and veterans is another legislative issue NOT a constitutional issue, that brings about a myriad of potential problems by placing it into the Constitution, most of which have been previously mentioned in this voter guide.
2. Changing the voting process for raising college fees has nothing to do with veterans and first responders and needs to be addressed separately.
3. Adding the state’s current system of higher education is not related to first responders & veterans. Additionally, making this system a constitutional amendment would forever write this system; good, bad, or imperfect,- in stone, to only be changed by yet another constitutional amendment.

Again, it is unclear why these unrelated issues should be combined into one measure.

A vote YES on Amendment 7 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

• Requiring employers to provide death benefits, as the state legislature defines, to the surviving spouses of first responders while engaged in official duties;
• Requiring the state to provide death benefits, as the state legislature defines, to the surviving spouses of active-duty U.S. Armed Forces members who are accidentally killed or unlawfully and intentionally killed;
• Requiring a nine-member vote of the board of trustees and 12-member vote of the board of governors to increase a college fee; and
• Placing the current structure of the state’s system of higher education in the Florida Constitution.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_7,_First_Responder_and_Military_Member_Survivor_Benefits,_Supermajority_Board_Votes_for_College_Fees,_and_State_College_System_Amendment_(2018)

---

**Amendment 8 There is NO Amendment 8 on the Florida Ballot**

---

 

Amendment 9 Ban Offshore Oil and Gas Drilling and Ban Vaping in Enclosed Indoor Workplaces Amendment (2018)  (This measure will NOT add another section to the Constitution; The measure will amend sections 7 Article II)

This measure would:

• ban offshore drilling for oil and natural gas on lands beneath all state waters and
• ban the use of vapor-generating electronic devices, such as electronic cigarettes, in enclosed indoor workplaces.

Author’s Note: While a citizen group or the legislature is required by law to keep the amendments single-issue, the Constitution Revision Committee is allowed to disregard this sound and sensible principle and “bundle” amendments to require the voter to give a single answer to multiple, unrelated propositions.  In a state that operated by any semblance of reason, these would be separate amendments. How are the issues of offshore drilling and indoor vaping related?  They are not.  It is reasonable to believe that someone could be opposed to one and in favor of the other.

Again, it is unclear why these unrelated issues should be combined into one measure.

A vote YES on Amendment 9 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

• A ban offshore drilling for oil and natural gas on lands beneath all state waters and
• A ban the use of vapor-generating electronic devices, such as electronic cigarettes, in enclosed indoor workplaces.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_9,_Ban_Offshore_Oil_and_Gas_Drilling_and_Ban_Vaping_in_Enclosed_Indoor_Workplaces_Amendment_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 10 State and Local Government Structure Amendment (2018)  (This measure will NOT add another section to the Constitution.  The measure will amend section 3 Article III and section 6 Article VIII )

This measure would:

• require, rather than authorize, the legislature to provide for a state Department of Veterans Affairs;
• create a state Office of Domestic Security and Counter-Terrorism;
• require the legislature to convene regular session on the second Tuesday of January of even-numbered years; and
• prohibit counties from abolishing certain local offices—sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, and clerk of the circuit court—and requiring elections for these offices.

Author’s Note: While a citizen group or the legislature is required by law to keep the amendments single-issue, the Constitution Revision Committee is allowed to disregard this sound and sensible principle and “bundle” amendments to require the voter to give a single answer to multiple, unrelated propositions.  In a state that operated by any semblance of reason, these would be separate amendments. For example, if I am in favor requiring a State Department of Veteran’s Affairs, why should I also have to support an infringement upon local voters to have control over their local officers?  Additionally, the sheriff is a constitutionally established office in Florida.  No local referendum ought to be permitted to abolish this office without amending the Florida Constitution otherwise.

Questions unanswered by these measures:

1. Does the creation of the Office of Domestic Security and Counter-Terrorism supersede the authority of the Sheriff to be the constitutional officer empowered to be the highest protection of the people as his duty requires?
2. Seems that the provision of the Office of Domestic Security and Counter-Terrorism, if it does not provide for a separate and autonomous exception to the power of the Sheriff, actually functionally nullifies that last provision of this amendment to prohibit the abolition of the office of the Sheriff.

Again, it is unclear why these unrelated issues should be combined into one measure.

A vote YES on Amendment 10 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

• The legislature to provide for a State Department of Veterans Affairs;
• The creation of a state Office of Domestic Security and Counter-Terrorism;
• Requiring the legislatureto convene regular session on the second Tuesday of January of even-numbered years; and
• Prohibiting counties from abolishing certain local offices—sheriff, tax collector, property appraiser, supervisor of elections, and clerk of the circuit court—and requiring elections for these offices.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_10,_State_and_Local_Government_Structure_Amendment_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 11 Repeal Prohibition on Aliens’ Property Ownership, Delete Obsolete Provision on High-Speed Rail, and Repeal of Criminal Statutes’ Effect on Prosecution Amendment (2018)  (This measure will NOT add another section to the Constitution.  The measure will amend sections 2 Article I & sections 9 & 19 Article X)

This measure would:

• repeal constitutional provision prohibiting foreign-born persons ineligible for citizenship from owning, inheriting, disposing of, and possessing property;
• repeal the constitutional provision mandating a high-speed ground transportation system be developed in Florida; and
• delete the constitutional provision that an amendment to a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of a crime committed before the statute’s amendment.

Author’s Note: Once again, these should be 3 separate ballot measures.  I do not normally tell you how to vote, but for Amendment 11 I am recommending an unequivocal NO because the third proffered amendment in 11 is potentially very dangerous to liberty & due process.  I will explain further below.

1. While this measure attempts to protect the property rights for those who are legally in this country, but not citizens, like those with green cards, or temporary visas, the broad & ill-defined language could be misconstrued to confer the benefits of citizenship upon those who have not obtained proper authorization under the federal Uniform Rules of Naturalization. Thoroughgoing representative debate is precisely what is called for in order to fully define terms and explore consequences. This is a prime example of why our Representatives should not shirk their duties by pawning off legislative issues into ballot initiatives.
2. The second measure exemplifies why these unnecessary constitutional ballot initiatives are dangerous to representative government. When the Florida voters ratified the high speed rail amendment, they did so with absolutely no legislative plan to fund it.  This constitutional amendment became financially impossible to fund, thereby making it impossible to enforce.  This is why this particular measure classifies the high speed rail amendment as “obsolete.”  Yet it is an amendment and by constitution is a mandate upon the legislature to carry through.  Because this high speed rail should have never been a constitutional amendment but should have been carried through by the legislature Floridians created a reality where the Florida legislators could autonomously ignore an entire section of the Florida Constitution with no consequences.  This creates a very, very dangerous precedent and mindset.
3. The third provision of this measure removes language from criminal statute that establishes that amendments to criminal statutes will affect prosecution of a crime committed BEFORE the amendment. This could work out to the benefit of the defendant, but more dangerously it could very possibly create the reality of ex post fact law.  What this means, is that someone who commits a crime under the current law, if the legislature amends that law, the nature and even elements of that crime may change, functionally creating a new crime and making that person criminally accountable for something that was not illegal at the time of the crime.  That is an ex post fact law and is an offense of the highest order to all sensibilities of Liberty and due process. This transports us to a pre-revolutionary system of Star-chamber justice, from which our forefathers fought to free us.

Again, it is unclear why these unrelated issues should be combined into one measure.

A vote YES on Amendment 11 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

• A repeal of the constitutional provision prohibiting foreign-born persons ineligible for citizenship from owning, inheriting, disposing, and possession property;
• A repeal of the constitutional provision stating that a high-speed ground transportation system be developed in Florida; and
• The deletion of the constitutional provision that an amendment to a criminal statute does not affect the prosecution of a crime committed before the statute’s amendment, opening up the possibility of enforcement of ex post facto laws.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_11,_Repeal_Prohibition_on_Aliens%E2%80%99_Property_Ownership,_Delete_Obsolete_Provision_on_High-Speed_Rail,_and_Repeal_of_Criminal_Statutes%27_Effect_on_Prosecution_Amendment_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 12 Lobbying Restrictions Amendment (2018)  (This measure will add another section to the Constitution; a new section to Article X.  The measure will also amend sections 7 & 8 Article IX)

This measure would bar public officials from lobbying for compensation during the official’s term in office and for six years after the official leaves office and prohibiting public officials from using the office to obtain a disproportionate benefit.

This is properly a constitutional amendment measure as it deals with controlling the political and legal operations of constitutionally established offices of government.

A vote YES on Amendment 12 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

Prohibiting public officials from lobbying for compensation during the official’s term in office and for six years after the official leaves office and prohibiting public officials from using the office to obtain a disproportionate benefit.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_12,_Lobbying_Restrictions_Amendment_(2018)

---

 

Amendment 13 Ban on Wagering on Dog Races Amendment (2018) (This measure will add another section to the Constitution; a new sections to Article X and Article XII

This measure would prohibit wagering on live dog races, including greyhound races, held in Florida and banning dog races in Florida on which there is wagering.

This is not properly a constitutional amendment measure and ought to be something handled through the representative process of legislation so that adjustments can be made as appropriate without additional constitutional amendments.

A vote YES on Amendment 13 Would Create a Constitutional Mandate:

The Prohibition of wagering on live dog races, including greyhound races, held in Florida and banning dog races in Florida on which there is wagering.

Full Text of the Amendment:  https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Amendment_13,_Ban_on_Wagering_on_Dog_Races_Amendment_(2018)

 

Download & Print the .pdf of this voter guide here