Cliffs on this right to farm 777 bill
- Thread starter Alpha Poke
- Start date
You can also consolidate without closing a single school. Just consolidate the school districts. Have one per county.
Oklahoma has 4 million people and 500 school districts.
Florida has 22 million people and 67 school districts.
While I agree with this strategy 100%, there is no support for this in OKC. A bill was put forward this past session and it didn't even make it out of committee.
And because the legislature can't make the hard decisions to spend the existing money more wisely, Oklahomans should simply vote to give them more?
Justin
Exactly. Having an entire school district consisting of 90 total students with its own superintendent making 100K per year is dumb no matter how it's spun. Keep the school open, but I'm confident one superintendent can probably handle several of these small districts.
I think I've made it pretty clear in this thread that I'm against 779. I was just noting that with the current legislature in place this solution is a pipe dream.
Fox News had a really good dual-sided feature on 777 couple nights ago.
Basically made me think we need something along the lines but this feature, in particular, is FAR too broad and will make the constitution unable to be changed in the future in ANY farming situation.
Basically made me think we need something along the lines but this feature, in particular, is FAR too broad and will make the constitution unable to be changed in the future in ANY farming situation.
As someone whose livelihood depends are farmers and ranchers it is an easy yes vote for me. Many other states have passed similar laws with most the opposition funding coming from outside state interest.
I guess most people are far enough removed from agriculture anymore they do not understand where their food comes from. Farming, technology, stewardship all go hand in hand.
I guess most people are far enough removed from agriculture anymore they do not understand where their food comes from. Farming, technology, stewardship all go hand in hand.
This is the prob I have... every time you hear a farmer defend it he makes it a personal issue as far as 'people don't get where their food comes from." That is actually said in the video. Yet when it comes to asking the farmer if, indeed, this is the broadest power given to any state in the union and can outside people to advantage of that, the defense is, "Well, people want to make it an emotional issue" when their side is the one that starts the emotion in the first place.
I have not heard one GOOD solid answer on what happens if it is too broad. Defenders just side-step that issue.
I have not heard one GOOD solid answer on what happens if it is too broad. Defenders just side-step that issue.
What part of the language is to broad for you? The entire bill, or parts of it?
It does become an emotional issue for many. I think the NO vote is preying on emotions (you may say the yes vote is doing the same).
Signs such as
"Don't Be Fooled, Vote NO on 777"
"Protect Our Animals, Vote NO on 777"
I do not understand what that means. You see them in NON Rural cities such as Lawton, OKC, Tulsa. It also irritates me that so much money from OUTSIDE the state from Oklahoma is coming in and helping with the NO vote. Are we doing what's best for Oklahoma by allowing outside money to influence what happens here in our state.
Mike, I have a lot of respect for you and also for how you served our country. I'll try to answer any questions you have concerning 777 if I can.
The primary funding for NO advertising on 777 comes from The Humane Society.
On a farming bill.
That tells me all I need to know, coupled with the knowledge that the vast majority of farmers and ranchers support 777.
On a farming bill.
That tells me all I need to know, coupled with the knowledge that the vast majority of farmers and ranchers support 777.
Basically from what I understand, it amends the constitution so the it cannot ever be amended in the future in regards to farming which would allow outside interests to come in and set up shop where the aren't wanted and regulated. It sets up provisions that would make it impossible to tweak laws if they are found to be lacking and erroneous.
I don't give a rat's ass about protecting animal rights and crap like that, but I also wanna know what the other legal ramifications are. Why are towns like Edmond coming out against it?
I don't give a rat's ass about protecting animal rights and crap like that, but I also wanna know what the other legal ramifications are. Why are towns like Edmond coming out against it?
Anytime you hear anyone say the constitution cannot ever be amended in the future in regards to farming (or anything), you should immediately both (a) call into question their basic honesty and (b) laugh you r head off.
"
The new Section creates state constitutional rights. It creates the following guaranteed rights to engage in farming and ranching:
WHO has the right?
WHAT technology?
WHAT procedures?
WHAT practices?
There is no explanation. If someone comes in and decides that something is their accepted practice and it is clearly bad but it is now their protected right, then "no law can interfere with these rights" and the rights "receive extra protection under this measure that not all constitutional rights receive" which means to UNdo it, it must be proven in a court of law that there is "compelling state interest-a clearly identified state interest of the highest order" when no such a thing actually exists in the law books.
I just don't get WHAT it provides other than blanket language.
Give me an example of what is going to change FOLLOWING this passing, and an example of what you can't do if the it FAILS.
https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/777.pdf?5,8
The new Section creates state constitutional rights. It creates the following guaranteed rights to engage in farming and ranching:
- The right to make use of agricultural technology
- The right to make use of livestock procedures, and
- The right to make use of ranching practices.
WHO has the right?
WHAT technology?
WHAT procedures?
WHAT practices?
There is no explanation. If someone comes in and decides that something is their accepted practice and it is clearly bad but it is now their protected right, then "no law can interfere with these rights" and the rights "receive extra protection under this measure that not all constitutional rights receive" which means to UNdo it, it must be proven in a court of law that there is "compelling state interest-a clearly identified state interest of the highest order" when no such a thing actually exists in the law books.
I just don't get WHAT it provides other than blanket language.
Give me an example of what is going to change FOLLOWING this passing, and an example of what you can't do if the it FAILS.
https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/777.pdf?5,8
Last edited:
Yep, a law, i.e. a statue. Meaning that, in order to change it, they would have to change the OK constitution, just like they are seeking to do currently with this very question (777).
If you construe that language to indicate that the OK constitution will be irrevocably be altered forever, then bless your heart.
a lot of vague twisting terms in that short bit of language....who determines the states compelling interest and who defines what that might be? To many interpretations that can be molded to whomever has the most power/money.
In no case does it mean the state constitution can't be altered in the future if the people choose it to be, just like will be voted upon 11/8/2016.
That's incorrect. It clearly states in the language that this cannot be changed as any other can.
No, it doesn't. The exact text of the proposed amendment reads: "the Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens...". The legislature passing laws is NOT the same as amending the OK constitution. The legislature can NOT amend the constitution on its own at any time, so your interpretation (and those whose BS you've bought) makes no sense.
Last edited:
No I'm not. Do you not understand the difference between introducing bills that become statutes in the legislature and amendments to the constitution?
Ditto, we'll share the prize. Damn, I was killing Viet Cong on NAS Norfolk before Maj. Obtuse was born; at some point (almost) everyone cuts their losses.....
Again, when you have no facts to fall back on you make personal attacks. Sad that people can't be smart enough to debate the issue instead of the people.
What a load of hypocritical horse-shit! It's laughable that you have no tolerance of differing opinions (in multiple threads) and always resort to "I'm sofa king smart"....
Except I don't have to call people names and put them down when I don't agree with them. I guess if having an inherent respect for people makes me 'Obtuse,' then I resemble that remark.
