I have no actual knowledge, but Amendment 1 seems like some sort of response to the puppy mill laws that have been bounced around recently, no?

This reads very similar to Ray Hartman's recent piece in StL Mag. http://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again/think-again%3A/

I for one think that puppy mills are a valuable source of jobs in our great state!

Vote yay on Amd. 1 and save my dude ranch outside St. Joe's.

I think the commercials for Amendment 1 are highly deceptive. They paint a picture hardworking Missourah farmers and how we need to protect their rights but don't go into any details.

In regards to amendment 1, I love how the big agriculture people are trying to demonize the Humane Society of Missouri. I'm not quite sure that is going to go over well.

^ Yea, they must have individuals write Facebook comments and Letters to the Editor as soon as stories are published. This is true for all the amendments.

I'm not sure about this, but my gut tells me right to farm is a preemptive strike on several fronts, but a main one is regulation of farm runoff. The EPA is currently crafting rules to effectively regulate non-point source pollution (farm field runoff of nutrients, sediments, pesticides etc) for the first time. Ag runoff is the #1 threat to water quality in our rivers, streams and lakes, by a long shot. And it's almost wholly unregulated. Prohibiting regulation of this stuff is a horrible idea. We don't necessarily need to go crazy with the regs, but prohibiting regulation of anything seems like a pretty bad idea to me...

I finally made sure I was informed on the amendments beyond just 7 today, at least enough to make a sound judgment with my vote. I support open discussion about this stuff, so here's where I stand:

Amendment 1 - Yes
This one is tough. There is the whole big ag worry that hangs over this. Will big corporations be able to use this to evade important future regulations concerning run off or anything else? Perhaps. But I've read enough testimonials from true family farmers that I believe a Yes vote makes sense to protect them from regulations that aren't based in reality. GMOs for example. In other states, some municipalities have passed ordinances banning them, and that's not based on good science, but it's a trendy thing that gets support. That sort of thing can't happen if this amendment passes. Meanwhile, I figure that any extremely important new regulation that needs to happen will likely happen at the federal level anyways, and this can't stop that.

Amendment 5 - No
This is just stupid. Gun rights are already protected in general and to a more specific degree in Missouri. This does nothing and just makes us look silly.

Amendment 7 - No
We've discussed this ad nauseam on the other thread, but it's a super obvious no for me.

Amendment 8 - No
I can't support funding essential or semi-essential items by encouraging citizens to engage in bad habits. And I don't mean to demonize the lottery, people can play it if they wish, and I do occasionally, but I'm not so sure about promoting it to the point of tying it to important services. And we know the end result is just to avoid paying our "real" money from the general fund to these important things so they can spend more frivolously on less important things. So this is an easy no for me.

Amendment 9 - Yes
This is relatively redundant and meaningless at the federal level, but it has the potential to be good at putting (or making clear) limitations on local agencies. This is one that may or may not be needed, but I think there's only upside (even if just a bit) and no real downside, so I'll be voting yes.

Not a decision I take lightly, nor one that I think is obvious. But for me, it's one that makes sense, and I believe reasonable regulations will still ultimately be applied and enforced. I totally respect the opposition, though.

I don't understand why we are legislating these things through constitutional amendments. Isn't this what the regular legislative process is for?

I'll vote no just for this simple reason alone (aside from the other troubling things i've read about this amendment). Stop trying to pass constitutional amendments for things that should be taken care of through more conventional avenues. It just doesn't seem necessary and I really question this way of doing things.

To me, amendments are added to protect the rights of citizens to vote, etc. etc....I don't think your particular vocation falls into that category...maybe next up they can amend the constitution to say being an accountant is an unalienable right?

^ I can't figure that out either.

olvidarte wrote:I don't understand why we are legislating these things through constitutional amendments. Isn't this what the regular legislative process is for?

I'll vote no just for this simple reason alone (aside from the other troubling things i've read about this amendment). Stop trying to pass constitutional amendments for things that should be taken care of through more conventional avenues. It just doesn't seem necessary and I really question this way of doing things.

To me, amendments are added to protect the rights of citizens to vote, etc. etc....I don't think your particular vocation falls into that category...maybe next up they can amend the constitution to say being an accountant is an unalienable right?

I generally agree although I can imagine that constitutional amendments are much harder to repeal. I disagree that many should be constitutional amendments but that's likely why.

innov8ion wrote:

olvidarte wrote: ...snip...
I'll vote no just for this simple reason alone (aside from the other troubling things i've read about this amendment). Stop trying to pass constitutional amendments for things that should be taken care of through more conventional avenues. It just doesn't seem necessary and I really question this way of doing things.
...snip...

I generally agree although I can imagine that constitutional amendments are much harder to repeal. I disagree that many should be constitutional amendments but that's likely why.

Agree on voting No on constitutional amendments -- this process seems to be the popular way of getting conventional laws to be more "permanent". They're the legislative version of writing with a Sharpie.

Amendment 1 is going to be super close.

Edit at 10:50:

VERY CLOSE

It might depend on if the No side wants to go to the trouble. It is unlikely to change the results.

Even though I voted for 1, I'm not thrilled to see it pass by such a slim margin. I think we ought to require some sort of super majority to amend the constitution. Changing the states guiding document in a 50+ to 49+ vote seems absurd.

My main reason to oppose Amendment 1 is because it was supported by all the people who were pissed we passed the Anti-Puppy mill referendum a few years back

But I also wonder what kind of precedent this sets. Is the "Right to Farm" any more sacrosanct than any other industry that supports one economically?

Will we see "Right to bank"?, "Right to Lawyer"? "Right to Truck Drive"? amendments in our Constitution in future years to protect these industries from any sort of regulation?

And what about the dildo manufacturers? Won't someone PLEASE think of the dildo manufacturers?

OK being silly, but jobs is jobs and industry is industry. The right to business is already implied unless said business is prohibited. Why do we need this?

We don't need it, and it will now be more difficult to regulate puppy mills and prevent Chinese-owned factory farms (e.g. Smithfield) from torturing pigs en mass and dumping their sh*t into our rivers. But, then, that was the whole point.