4 constitutional amendments on this year's Utah ballot

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Love the Game American Fork, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 12:28 p.m.

    Scambuster, I agree with most of your post. However, I have read each amendment and they make sense to me and I will be voting in favor of them.

  • scambuster American Fork, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 6:08 a.m.

    Four new amendments. This is nothing new. Every two years there are about this many proposed changes by the big government apparatus. I'm a Republican, yet I'm mystified by the 400+ laws that are passed every year in the legislature and the plethora of constitutional changes. This is down right scary. Do we really need 4,000 new laws per decade? Do we need about 20 constitutional changes per decade? The party of small government, can't seem to walk their talk and are bent on re-molding the entire state government in the image of one particular political party's ideology. Codifying Republican ideology FORCES all other political parties to conform to the Republican Party ideology when that ideology becomes the law of the land and it becomes illegal to do otherwise. This is not healthy for a "Republic" form of government. It is not healthy to have ONE political party in power for such a long time, that they are now targeting the state constitution in an effort to permanently maintain power. Voters need to wake up. Again, I'm a Republican, and I'm waking up to this fact.

  • My2Cents Kearns, UT
    Oct. 31, 2010 4:00 a.m.

    I do hope this is just a sample of readers who have taken the time to read and understand the criminal implications these amendments propose. They are meant to cripple the actions of citizens and block any and all attempts to redress their government.

    All these amendments deny us our constitutional rights and gives more powers to government to block civilized intervention by citizens in to government processes. These amendments are inspired socialism and deception to block accountability of our elected and appointed leaders. More indemnification of responsibility and accountability and you cannot question their actions if these amendments pass.

    Block them, stop them, and vote a resounding "NO" to their approval.

  • Attack of the Republiclones Ogden, UT
    Oct. 30, 2010 10:42 p.m.

    What's the deal with ripping on unions? Who are the people who have been talked into believing that they are behind the problems of America? Compared to 30 or 40 years ago, the CEO's salary vs average worker has gone up hideously. Why is it in times of recession and downfall, CEOs earned more money while layoffs and outsourcing happened? The greed of a very few people almost destroyed many nations, and people are worried about unions? Especially in this state? There are no working rights in this state.

    The "distribution of wealth" has happened but in the opposite direction. It's like Robin Hood robbing the poor to give to Prince John--we live in strange times. Saddest part is the people who believe the talking points of Fox News and take ole Rupert Murdoch's agenda and go with it and vote against their own interests. Very scary, even for Halloween!

  • Utah Dem Ogden, UT
    Oct. 30, 2010 2:31 p.m.

    That's funny JNA, because anything that Buttars, Stephenson and Wimmer are in favor of I will vote against. See how that works?

  • JNA Layton, UT
    Oct. 30, 2010 2:19 p.m.

    If there is an amendment that in any way upsets unions and their leaders as well as Democrats, I will be in favor of it. I will be voting "Yes"

  • Cobb Taylorsville, UT
    Oct. 30, 2010 11:58 a.m.

    I can understand why Buttars is against this - if this passes, he may not be protected from the nepotism and cronyism that has thus-far sheltered him from getting kicked to the curb. Oh, and I'm from West Jordan, not Taylorsville.

  • dave31 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 30, 2010 11:35 a.m.

    Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, and Sen. Ben McAdams, D-Salt Lake City write "You are being asked to forever close the door on the democratic right of employees to collect signatures as a means of organizing and choosing a representative to be their voice in negotiations with their employer."

    This statement is untrue. The adoption of this amendment in no way hinders the collection of signatures regarding organizing and choosing a representative. It merely requires a "secret election" to take place if a majority of the employees desire such an election. What is wrong with that?