Comments about ‘Initiative law too restrictive’

If being ethical and honest is too much for our representatives then they are in the wrong business and should resign. Being an elected Representative was never intended to be a career, it's a service to the public who elects them.

Thinking public service as a career is what has made our government in to what it is, corrupt, dishonest, and unethical. An initiative restricting what legislators can do is very much a necessity now, more than ever as lack of ethics tears down peoples constitutional rights to representation. Politicians have this insane idea they are above the law and can do as they please and that they have no moral obligation to the people.

Hopefully the clerks office will withhold petition signers names from access from legislators so they can't use subversion to defeat the voice of the people with their dishonesty. The legislators only want the names to use for dishonest reasons.

Conservatives and Republicans are screaming loud and long that the President is not with the people on the Health Care bill that has passed.

Is there a poll in Utah that would show how the people of Utah feel about their on government?

It seems that the Utah government has no qualms about using every trick and device to prevent the will of the people in Utah to be heard.

If President Obama is off the target, the Utah government is a hundred times worse.

The reasoning behind this state of affairs is simple, The state governments like Utah are already owned and controlled by the commercial interests who would also like to own and operate our federal government.

Their arguments are that democracy is bad because it allows the uninformed, undeserving, and uncaring to vote and therefore we must have government by the true elite informed, deserving, and caring rich and powerful.

How must the citizens of Utah go about taking back their state government?

We live in a Republic where we select others to represent us on all levels of government. That does not mean that we shouldn't be involved in government. That does not mean that we should blindly sit by while the 'elite' do whatever they want to do. It does mean that we have a system that enables us to spend most of our time doing what we need to do to care for ourselves and for our families, knowing that we have a proxy who represents us on each level of government.

An initiative changes that form of government to a quasi-democracy where each citizen is personally responsible to participate in government on a per-bill basis. That assumes that each and every voter will study the issues thoroughly and that each voter will sacrifice his own welfare for the good of the group, just as he expects his proxy to do.

To make the direct process work, there has to be a significant desire on the part of voters to handle legislation personally. If 10% of the people won't sign an initiative, then they have made their choice and that initiative is not wanted.

Principle 1 - The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

Principle 2 - A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin

Principle 3 - The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.

"Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams

My 2 bits...
Being honored by being selected BY THE PEOPLE to participate in government should be a considered an honor and a privilege. It should NEVER be seen as a way to become rich! Nor should our leaders ever consider themselvs to be Rulers, or aristocracy. They represent us and must demonstrat ethics at al times.

The only ones who don't like initiatives are;

Lobbyists
and the Government officials their money can buy.

Let the people have a voice.

If only this statement were entirely true:
They contend that the legislative process better serves the electorate because important proposals undergo the legislative hearing process, where members of the public can express their support or concerns for various proposals.
Many time bills are held until the end of the session and are brought out after all hearings have been held.

In addition, there are some committees that are down right rude to anybody who dares express a differing opinion. Civil discourse has gone away and has been replace by bullying and belittling.

Other times time is short and no public comment is allowed. Rest assured that the lobbyist who has contributed greatly to a campaign will be heard but some lowly citizen, not so much. If they are heard, they are dismissed summarily.

I agree with the editorial. The bar for initiatives should be moderately high. Difficult enough to keep out foolishness, but attainable when there is a sufficient public desire for a change.

Sometimes politicians serve themselves and the initiative process can provide an effective workaround to keep all parties working in the public's best interest.

The problem with a Republic as a form of government is that it needs a reliable method of selecting the representatives. And for every one who is trying to get proper representation for people in general there may be a hundred trying to get representation for a tiny group.

Dishonesty and corruption are facilitated by the concentration of power in the hands of only a few men. It allows the selfish element to focus on a specific target and do it in a way that is invisible to the public.

The advantage that democracy has over the republic is that the power is spread thinly over a great number of people and while the selfish may still press their needs, they must do it more openly.

One solution might be for us to change the way we select our representatives. Like:

Eliminate the power of the political party by eliminating things like mass meetings, conventions and such.

Require candidates to post resumes and a full background check for analysis by the electorate.

If allowed, all monies donated for advertising would be put in a single pool to be allocated to all candidates.

After all that, the names would be put in a hat and the winner drawn by lot. Sort of like in Jury duty.

@ Ultra Bob'

We, the people, select our proxies. They are not drawn out of a hat.

@Ultra Bob

Agreed reference the influence of special interest groups on a campaign. Ditto for the concentration of power and the problems of selfishness. That said, most of us probably have personal predilections represented by some of those special interest groups.

George Washington was no fan of political parties and saw them as a threat to America’s future. The problem with eliminating them is that we have the freedom of association and would likely not want to whittle that away.

Candidates generally do have a lot of information available. The problem is that most of the voters don’t research enough and the campaign for candidate A is always trying to define candidate B in the way most favorable to candidate A. It can be hard for the truth to surface.

Publically funded elections have not caught hold in the US. The current Supreme Court has been antagonistic toward limits on contributions and spending. The result is the best slate of candidates that money can buy (both sides).

Reference picking names out of a hat. We need to vote. It’s just that important.

Iniatives are only for those who desire pure majority rule.

We haves Republic for a reason,


and we know how well majority rule is working in california, and much they like it.

So why can't you guys come to terms that Barack Obama is the President of the United States?

He was elected by both the Electoral College (Republic),

AND

the popular vote.

You obvious know how it works - deal with it.

Read the fine print and understand what it actually does. Do not fall for the sugar coated name for an initiative, or the glib explanation of the person asking you to sign the petition (and often getting paid for each signature they get).

Nor should you believe what the liberal media tell you about an initiative.

In this case the "ethics" reform is a Trojan horse filled with bad consequences, and creating new power centers that can be abused more easily than the present imperfect but functional system.

Do NOT sighn the ballot initiative, and do NOT vote for it if it gets on the ballot in 2010 or 2012.