No, because 594 was an initiative to the LEGISLATURE* (not the people) the legislature FIRST has an opportunity to do one of the following:



https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/election ... Manual.pdf

(* see http://ballotpedia.org/Washington_2014_ballot_measures "ITL")

How embarrassing that a dirty foreigner knows more about the lawmaking process in Washington than the locals....

It was still voted in by a "majority". What relevance is there that it first went to the legislature? To jim_dandy's point, absolutely none. Nice try though.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

how ignorant a dirty foreigner.............................oh never mind

Sorry, I thought you meant after the law has passed. It would have gone on the ballot anyway if they rejected it.

It's not really a check when basically the only outcome is it goes on the ballot, and a different measure would be more of the same thing. The way checks and balances work in the United States is a check is able to stop the other party from acting and vice versa (balance).

Read this as an example.

The real check will have to come from the courts when someone is charged.

And again, side of ignorance, see Prop 8, etc.

Read this paper by Judge Christopher Coury on the issues created by the initiative/referendum process: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewc ... xt=ndjlepp

See Problem 1 and Problem 2 under Procedural Problems, and Problem 2 under Substantive Problems

The author provides some suggestions to reform the initiative process so it can't be abused like it was with 594.

They could have proposed an amended bill and put it on the ballot alongside 594.



Sort of surprised the SAF totally misfired by filing a suit from a bunch of people with no standing.... a waste of money and time.

So.... let's review, the following checks and balances have been passed by the initiative:
- legislature had opportunity to act before it was passed to ballot
- voted on by the people
- could be overturned by supermajority of leg today

additional pending checks and balances:
- could be overturned by majority of leg after 2 years of passing
- judicial review in a court case (which no one has brought anything workable yet....)

It seems to me you're just upset about the outcome on 594.
(Even though the people have spoken and not a single member of the legislature did a single thing to change the outcome)
They could have created an alternative initiative that fixed some of the acute issues. But not even the republicans did a thing.



The solution is obvious: write an initiative to overhaul the initiative process. (maybe add the ability for a veto by the governor)
Or get the legislature to do something.



How do you think it was abused?

That's not really a check. An amended bill would still be a UBC.

How would one amend a ban on gay marriage? Make it only ban certain gay marriages?



I agree, but it may just be they wanted to show they were doing something, or hoping they could still get a result.



Not a check. See above.



This is the thing being checked. The idea behind a system of checks and balances is something that is out of control is being checked. This isn't currently happening, and is even less likely to happen when you are buddy buddy with the local fourth estate.



A little better, but not a real check in the system we have. Especially seeing as it's unlikely to even be put on the floor for a vote because a 594 supporter is the spigot for those particular bills.



Which is what I was talking about - leaving two years of people's rights being violated.

'

So no one has even been charged. Does that mean your bear patrol is working, or is the bear patrol a waste of time and money? The SAF clearly has a valid case, just a technicality is stopping it from proceeding.



Yes, but this bill also highlights the issues with the initiative process when it comes to taking away a person's rights. See Prop 8 and the paper I linked you as examples.



Yes, because they legally couldn't. Of the three (four?) outcomes, two lead it to be voted for, one is adoption, and the last is basically more of the same written differently.



If you're against the banning of gay marriage, how would you make an alternative bill when such a bill is presented to you?

How would you remove the problems with banning gay marriage when that is the essence of the bill?

How would you feel when your opponents call you out for supporting the ban with your altered bill?



It would probably take the second to get something done when one doesn't have millions to throw away. Also those who have powers are less likely to want to get rid of them, including the mob.



A civil right was taken from people using ignorance and fearmongering. This isn't something generally that initiatives should do without due consideration. It wouldn't have come about unless it was bankrolled by several billionaires. It worked in this instance as an arm of an oligarchy for Hanaeur and Bloomberg.





Hence this reform should either be required or at least considered:

Proposal Four:

You could amend it to be blank. There's no limit on what the leg could do. Just that is has to be alongside the initiative with the letter B.



If it was done by the leg we could have a veto referendum.



Was an opportunity check. See above. Any number of republicans could have proposed an alternate bill.
And they CHOSE TO DO NOTHING.



No the initiative itself was put forth by some people, could have been voted down by the electorate.



Just because the elected officials are not doing anything doesn't mean the opportunity isn't there.
You wrote your elected officials, right? What did they do? NOTHING.
So what have they brought to overturn 594 to that committee you allege is controlled by a 594 supporter? NOTHING.



You are talking, but I am not seeing a court case. You can say it is a right's violation, but we have a legal system to determine that.
The first (but probably not only) round was a squib. Outcome: NOTHING.



There is no technicality. Get a 20 year old person. Have them try to do a private purchase of a handgun.
The FFL will refuse, citing federal law. There is your case. Rights violated. Why has it taken 6 months and no one has made that case?



You're missing the point. There were several cases and appeals on Prop 8. That is due process. You don't just declare something unconstitutional by fiat. Every citizen of WA has equal opportunity to have a court examine 594 and see if their rights were violated. Do you hear the crickets?



As I said above they could have completely rewritten the bill. They could have proposed the CPL as good guy card plan we all like.
So your claim is void - the legislature could have done that. And they did NOTHING. Not one single elected official bothered to even draft an alternative initiative.



We're not talking about gay marriage. But yes they could write an alternative bill that is basically empty. Go look at the WA state constitution and RCW.



Tim Eyman did pretty well with initiatives with not a lot of funding in the beginning.



Disagree. The polls favored it even before the big donations and fear campaign.

What would you consider due consideration?




An argument would then be made that 594 does NOT infringe on constitutional rights. There would be years of court cases before it got to a vote.
So then a few people with a lawyer and $$$ can blockade the will of the people.

I actually do agree with you that the initiative process needs an overhaul, not solely as it relates to individual rights. But your arguments could be stronger, e.g. pick another initiative. By continually referencing 594, it just sounds like you don't like the outcome. It has been in force for 6 months now or something, and no court challenge of any merit. If it REALLY REALLY is an obvious and outright violation of your rights, surely making that case should be straightforward and simple to articulate?

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

Okay, looks like this is turning into another episode of "explain to ANZAC basic principles".

Simply put, mob rule based on fear and ignorance pushed a law forward, and there were no checks against it. The legislative process you describe, even with a blank bill, would have done nothing. It is simply not a check. The alternative blank bill would have been ignored when next to the other option that would still go on the ballot, and placing an alternative would have seen as further gun control.

If you're against banning gay marriage, altering a bill that still bans gay marriage is essentially showing support for banning gay marriage.

Also:






That's like saying the House doesn't need a check because only a small group introduced an AWB, and the representatives voting on it still voted for it.

That's not how checks and balances work.



It's likely it was just too soon, or they were awaiting the judicial challenge, or they knew even symbolically it was a waste of time when the billionaires are most vigilant.



There was a court case that was dismissed. I keep pointing out it's a mistake to assume this is a victory for the gun control crowd. It's a mere technicality, and it further illustrates how useless 594 has been with no one even charged in the time it has been a law. Clearly it wasn't an issue, or this is another case of bear patrol fever. Either law enforcement is afraid it will be overturned or they don't care because they have actual crime to deal with.



I've already suggested that is a good idea, but I'm not a lawyer. It's likely the judge has made it clear the law can only be challenged when a person is charged with it, but for some reason the behavior caused by the law isn't affected. That is a technicality.



The due process should have stopped the initiative entirely. It's easy to convince the mob by making them fear shadows, even ones as innocuous as gay marriage or homosexuals, when you give them to choice to do so. It doesn't make it right.



I'm not sure why this is so difficult, but that is not a check. A check is when the activity is stopped, not aided.



Good point.



The fear campaign was going on before 594 polls, and the more people learned about the law the less likely they were to support it.

Also the oft-quoted 90% poll can easily be debunked by actually reading the poll question referenced. Look up "push poll".

Due consideration: Does it violate or take away rights? Then it probably shouldn't be an initiative, or a court should evaluate it first.



That would be like saying the lawyers who helped overturn Prop 8 are blockading the will of the people. Those darn lawyers and $$$ fighting for gay rights. Years of court cases deciding as to whether something gets to a vote is far better than passing a law that violates civil rights and waiting for it to be overturned!



This is one good example of why it needs to be overhauled and given an actual check. Again, having no real challenge after 6 months is only due a technicality which ironically highlights how useless this law actually is, and yes, I don't like the outcome. Just like I didn't like the outcome of Prop 8 in CA even though it has no affect on me or my rights.



There's a good reason we're a Republic and not a Democracy, and it's also seriously mitigated by the fact that 594 is really:

Quoted for truth.

The majority (how ever defined) must still respect and recognize the rights of the minority.

How many more times and in how many different ways do you think we'll have to repeat this? ;)

Laws are considered constitutional until they're challenged in court and found unconstitutional, at least that's what the courts say.

You can pass the most unconstitutional 'law', and it would still be enforced as if it were the law....Until challenged in court.


The whole 'standing' BS is exactly that.. To say I can't sue because I haven't been arrested yet, or 'it doesn't effect you'.... Bullshit.. Private sales have dropped like a rock, even between law abiding citizens.. not even TOUCHING illegal sales because.. oh look.. CRIMINALS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW...

I guess having laws reviewed before hand is a pipe dream due to US history.



Well, no one's been charged.... clearly it's working, right?

It may have to come at the end of a barrel, for 'those people' to finally get the message.

Imagine a group of guys surrounding a kid in high school, yelling 'this kid's violent, he's gonna hit someone!', all the while, literally backing him into a corner, yelling at him... Telling him what a piece of shit he is, how he hates black people, is responsible for slavery, is the reason the school is such a piece of shit, etc... then they take away his lunch..... first his chocolate milk.. then his corn dog.. then they smash his plate.... then they start grabbing at him... tearing his shirt... pushing him..

Finally the kid loses it, starts pushing back, beats the shit out of a couple people, then everyone yells 'SEE! He's VIOLENT! LOOK WHAT HE DID!..

So the kid gets kicked out of school, and sent to a mental institution for 'observation'..


^^THAT^^ is what's gonna end up happening to 'us'... guaranfuckingtee it...

We're gonna get pushed, until our backs are up against the wall, we're gonna fight back with whatever we have left, and we'll be labeled terrorists, right wing extremists, etc.

Yup, just like some black bitch should've just moved her happy ass to the back of the bus, it's not like they were asking too much of her... Oh. wait.. you mean that just because something 'has always been this way', doesn't make it right...? She had no right to sit at the front of the bus, and all she had to was comply..

SSAAAYYYYY WWWWHHAAAAAATTTT???!!!

Tell me more..

There's a reason for that.

The crown used to arrest people it disagreed with, or suggested changes it didn't like.

As such, they made it so that there were/are no repercussions for introducing legislation, no matter how retarded/vile/unconstitutional they are.

Back in the 'old days' this was handled by the population, who would literally tar and feather (sometimes bayonet) people who would advance such shit as being able to kick in doors without warrant, detain without cause etc..

Now we can't defend the constitution on a personal level, that's 'terrorism'....

So, you can't kill the guy who says 'fuck the republic, I'm a socialist, I'm gonna lie to get a law passed to limit your constitutional rights'...

Well, you can, but then YOU are the bad guy.

'Let the courts sort it out', they say...

How long did it take Heller to get decided on? 30 fucking years for DCs unconstitutional ban to get reversed..

To put that in perspective, for people living in DC, HALF of their life was spent with an unconstitutional ban in place. How many people would have had guns, but didn't, because they were 'law abiding citizens'?

Law abiding people want to abide by the law, its in our nature, we WANT the system to work.

We also have to realize that the system may not work, and we should make provisions for that scenario as well.


We are a nation of LAW.

The Constitution is the supreme LAW of the land.

Unconstitutional LAW is no LAW at all.