-
Website
http://michiganmessenger.com/ -
Original page
http://www.michiganmessenger.com/?p=2740 -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Kwaayesnama
27 comments · 1 points
-
KellyLogan
83 comments · -5 points
-
chetlyzarko
66 comments · 1 points
-
ebrayton
107 comments · 2 points
-
Trajan8
29 comments · 3 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Mich. Senate passes smoking ban
13 hours ago · 1 comment
-
McManus lauds Senate bill targeting ACORN
1 day ago · 2 comments
-
Anti-gay school bus incident renews calls for anti-bullying legislation
6 days ago · 5 comments
-
Reformers take aim at Michigan’s underage sex laws
1 week ago · 6 comments
-
Statewide smoking ban: To exempt or not to exempt?
3 days ago · 2 comments
-
Mich. Senate passes smoking ban
We agree on this one. The principle of exclusion or not rendering parts of the Constitution null would both buttress the interpretation that "general revisions" should be different from more precise "amendments". The Court took a lot of words to defend its decision - knowing the inevitable political claims that it was only acting in its own political interests would be levied - and its only weakness was that it struggled to precisely define "general revision," I think it was clear enough and certainly clear enough from RMGN itself that it was a major general systemwide revision, rather than an amendment. Like obscenity - you know it when you see it (for example, we all know child-pornography is obscene and should be regulatable despite the First Amendment) - this particular case was easy even though the definition isn't.