![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As mentioned in the last post, I didn’t watch very much TV while I was in the states. But when I did, I got an earful about politics. It being an election year and all.
Naturally that includes political ads, of which I saw quite a few. Some of them involve Congressional races, and I found it interesting that most of the Republican ads seemed to talk a lot about Obama. As in, “A vote for Gordon Ball is a vote for Obama and the Obama Agenda.”
There were a bunch of ads like that. I guess the GOP’s main message this year is “If you elect a Democrat, yr really electing Obama – in fact it might as well be Obama’s name on the ballot, because the Democrats are actually one big Obama hive mind controlled by Obama.”
So basically every GOP candidate for any given office is really running against Obama, see?
Or something.
The other big political ads in TN centered around two proposed amendments to the state constitution and a referendum about wine sales. It took me awhile to figure out the details, because the ads certainly don’t tell you anything. But here’s the gist:
Amendment 1 aims to give the TN govt the legal power to regulate abortion (a power it purportedly lost in a state court case 14 years ago).
Amendment 2 has to do with the method by which state judges are appointed.
The wine referendum (on the ballot in 80 counties and cities) proposes to make it legal for grocery stores to sell wine.
I don't have any strong opinion on the latter two. The wine referendum is more of a business issue (i.e. liquor stores don’t want the competition), and I don’t drink wine anyway. I also think judge selection in TN will be politicized no matter how they’re selected.
As for Amendment 1, I should explain that it’s meant to “fix” a state supreme court decision 14 years ago that struck down several abortion laws as too restrictive under the state constitution. Republicans essentially want to amend the constitution accordingly to make it easier to bring those restrictions back.
The debate is pretty predictable. If you’ve chosen a side in the abortion debate, you already know which way you’re going to vote.
Looking at the actual proposal, it looks like a weak argument to me. I understand the desire to change the constitution to make yr unconstitutional ideas constitutional, but when yr proposing changes just so that laws that only yr party supports stand a better chance of surviving a court challenge, it sounds to me less like “giving the people more power to decide what abortion legislation they should have” and more like a way to get around the checks and balances the judicial branch is there to provide.
Also, I’m not a big fan of constitutional amendments inspired by current hot-button wedge issues.
Granted, I’m pro-choice, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Still, it’s a pretty crappy amendment that pretends that the TN legislature has no ability to regulate abortion. They do – they just can’t make the laws as restrictive as they want. I take the point that pro-life legislators still wouldn’t be able to pass anything that contravenes Roe v. Wade if the amendment passes. But it's pretty clear from the wording that the pro-life camp wants it spelled out in the state constitution that no one has the right to abortion, and it’s reasonable to assume they’ll make maximum use of that wording.
So no, Amendment 1 doesn’t strike me as a good idea.
Consequently I’m expecting it to pass. This is the same state that approved the “gateway” abstinence-only education bill, after all.
Don’t go changin’,
This is dF
==============================
EDITED TO ADD [Nov 6]: It passed. So did three other amendments, two of which I wasn’t aware – one to prevent a state income tax, and one to allow veterans organizations to hold raffles and bingo events. I gather the latter two had enough support that no one thought they were worth blowing money on political ads.
Naturally that includes political ads, of which I saw quite a few. Some of them involve Congressional races, and I found it interesting that most of the Republican ads seemed to talk a lot about Obama. As in, “A vote for Gordon Ball is a vote for Obama and the Obama Agenda.”
There were a bunch of ads like that. I guess the GOP’s main message this year is “If you elect a Democrat, yr really electing Obama – in fact it might as well be Obama’s name on the ballot, because the Democrats are actually one big Obama hive mind controlled by Obama.”
So basically every GOP candidate for any given office is really running against Obama, see?
Or something.
The other big political ads in TN centered around two proposed amendments to the state constitution and a referendum about wine sales. It took me awhile to figure out the details, because the ads certainly don’t tell you anything. But here’s the gist:
Amendment 1 aims to give the TN govt the legal power to regulate abortion (a power it purportedly lost in a state court case 14 years ago).
Amendment 2 has to do with the method by which state judges are appointed.
The wine referendum (on the ballot in 80 counties and cities) proposes to make it legal for grocery stores to sell wine.
I don't have any strong opinion on the latter two. The wine referendum is more of a business issue (i.e. liquor stores don’t want the competition), and I don’t drink wine anyway. I also think judge selection in TN will be politicized no matter how they’re selected.
As for Amendment 1, I should explain that it’s meant to “fix” a state supreme court decision 14 years ago that struck down several abortion laws as too restrictive under the state constitution. Republicans essentially want to amend the constitution accordingly to make it easier to bring those restrictions back.
The debate is pretty predictable. If you’ve chosen a side in the abortion debate, you already know which way you’re going to vote.
Looking at the actual proposal, it looks like a weak argument to me. I understand the desire to change the constitution to make yr unconstitutional ideas constitutional, but when yr proposing changes just so that laws that only yr party supports stand a better chance of surviving a court challenge, it sounds to me less like “giving the people more power to decide what abortion legislation they should have” and more like a way to get around the checks and balances the judicial branch is there to provide.
Also, I’m not a big fan of constitutional amendments inspired by current hot-button wedge issues.
Granted, I’m pro-choice, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Still, it’s a pretty crappy amendment that pretends that the TN legislature has no ability to regulate abortion. They do – they just can’t make the laws as restrictive as they want. I take the point that pro-life legislators still wouldn’t be able to pass anything that contravenes Roe v. Wade if the amendment passes. But it's pretty clear from the wording that the pro-life camp wants it spelled out in the state constitution that no one has the right to abortion, and it’s reasonable to assume they’ll make maximum use of that wording.
So no, Amendment 1 doesn’t strike me as a good idea.
Consequently I’m expecting it to pass. This is the same state that approved the “gateway” abstinence-only education bill, after all.
Don’t go changin’,
This is dF
==============================
EDITED TO ADD [Nov 6]: It passed. So did three other amendments, two of which I wasn’t aware – one to prevent a state income tax, and one to allow veterans organizations to hold raffles and bingo events. I gather the latter two had enough support that no one thought they were worth blowing money on political ads.
