Amendment 1 is an amendment that was added to the Florida constitution last year(2014). Over 75% of Floridians voted for this act that is supposed to delegate money to help protect as well as buy land for Florida .The money delegated specifically for Amendment 1 should be used only to preserve the land, such as buying things to help protect the land. The money should be used specifically for trucks and any supplies needed as well as the land and not anything else; if it's not being used for what it's set aside for, don't set it aside at all. Amendment 1 states specifically: "Funds the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to acquire, restore, improve, and manage conservation lands." That is what the voters saw when a whopping 75% voted
for the law, and that is exactly what they got--using the money that is set aside for managing the land. Buying land and anything to protect or preserve the "natural beauty" off it all is what it says, it doesn't say " The 33 percent of the profit (referred to as the net revenues should be used only to purchase land ." Which is actually the opposite of what the law was made) to do , the law was made so that the Florida wildlife officials can protect the land. I believe that the money has been wisely used . Although others may disagree , such as when The Florida Wildlife Federation, St. Johns Riverkeeper and Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida attempts to sue the Florida state legislature for misusing money that was specifically dictated for land preservation which was really exactly what the legislation was using the money for ( an ongoing case). Therefore whoever dictates the money for this amendment should not be punished because that's what the money was earmarked for. Another reason that the money and the amendment is a clever thing is because, "Direct one-third of existing fees collected by the state when real estate is sold to protect natural areas and wildlife habitat and preserve our water quality for the next two decades" according to the "About the Amendment 1 campaign" article released on the Florida's water and land legacy website, and what that means is that the Florida legislature will reserve money for restoring Florida's "cherished" waterways , such as rivers or lakes.
...udicial branch of the American government must be checked by the legislatures of states. To prevent instances like this from reoccurring, it is essential for state legislatures to take preventative steps and draft bills that would further limit the ability of the government to appropriate private property while still protecting private property owners. At the federal level, since it is abundantly clear from the case of Midkiff that the Supreme Court will defer to the Congress to define “public use,” a constitutional remedy needs to take place in the form of an amendment to the Constitution. It would be essential that an amendment to the Public Use Clause would specify the guidelines and standards of a “public use” to preserve the original intent of the legislative authors and provide the necessary private property protection to which all all Americans have a right.
If Jefferson bought the land thinking to do good, where would be the dilemma? The purchase crossed lines with his, quite strict, view of the rules of the constitution. He viewed the
Governor Jeb Bush's One Florida Initiative has come into action and there have been many opposing opinions towards this plan since The Board of Regents approved it. Some might say the plan has split Florida in two. Many Florida citizens who support One Florida argue towards opposing positions to give the plan a chance. These supporters believe this state needs a change because of the numerous problems within our school system. Opposing sides argue that they might consider part of, which is the plan that grants schools money towards scholarships and mentoring but their position is that affirmative action is not a problem. Supporter of One Florida Initiative believe that the plan could not have come about any later than it did because we needed some action done fast. While opposers believe that this plan was voted on too fast and the governor didn't give citizens enough information or time to do anything about it.
result of this purchase, the U.S. population was able to expand and increase. The Federalist favored the sale of large land parcels to wealthy speculators instead of small parcel sales to farmers and contributed to the inflation of land values. Federalists were in control so they could determine anything that they wanted as far as the land goes. Thomas Jefferson was aloud to spend 10 million dollars on the Louisiana Purchase. However, he spent 15 million dollars putting the US in a 5 million dollar debt. “In a government which is founded by the people, who possess exclusively th...
Texas is big! From the size of the state, to our trucks, and to our pride, there are countless examples of why “everything is bigger in Texas”. Even our state constitution is bigger! With approximately 87,000 words and 474 amendments, the current Texas Constitution of 1876 is one of the longest state constitutions in the United States. Compared to the United States Constitution with only 4,400 words and 27 amendments, one wonders how the Texas state and local governments can operate efficiently with such an overwhelming document. The length and detail of the constitution stem from the specific policies written into the document, making it statutory in nature. This specificity has resulted in a restrictive document that requires frequent amending.
by forbidding the sale of any land within the reserve unless it was turned over to the
“By filing a one-page form, some producers can have their oil wells reclassified as gas wells and potentially reap huge tax savings. More such requests are being granted, and the Texas budget might start feeling the pain “(Malewitz, 2015). This is beneficial to higher income level citizens because they end up paying less taxes and keeping even more earnings from their profits. They ending up having even more money to keep to themselves, they do not have to pay a state income tax. A state income tax that could be into use by the state to fund programs for lower income level citizens. This appeals to higher income level people because they would not like to end up helping fund a program that they most likely do not qualify for. They are not worried about funding programs that are dedicated to helping poor communities. For example if someone with a high income level gets sick, they will probably have enough money to visit any hospital of their choice but a low income person will not have enough money to do so and will rely on a local hospital. This is where no state income taxes affect the poor. There is not enough money to fund programs that provide local hospitals with enough money to expand their equipment and
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
... water pollution cleanup in the Everglades, and Amendment 6, establishing an Everglades Trust Fund.
Missouri and Florida’s New Laws Constitutional? Missouri Law Review, Spring2012, Vol. 77 Issue 2, p567-589. 23p. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.southuniversity.libproxy.edmc.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=aef9f6f7-734d-4a6c-adae-2b97736ecc93%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=127
The Pacific Railroad bill of 1862 launched the transcontinental railroad construction project. The Pacific Railroad bill granted 6,400 acres of public lands and government loans ranging from $16,000 to $48,000 per mile of track completed to the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad companies. (Pacific Railroad Bill) Following the Pacific Railroad bill a series of federal and state acts between 1862 and 1871 granted more than 130 million acres of public land and supplied additional monetary loans of approximately $150 million dollars to the expansion of the railroads. (Gillon p.652)
Although the current method is a “relatively easy method”, it “has enabled the state “government to meet some [of the] changing needs” of Texas (Gibson and Robison 47). The amendment process has allowed for 474 amendments, resulting in a very long constitution. However, these amendments have allowed the constitution to adapt to the various changes that have occurred since 1876, while also navigating around the confusion caused by excessive details. The current method gets the job done, while also allowing for the people to vote on matters if they would like to. This amendment method also requires “approval by two-thirds of the House and the Senate” to put the proposed amendment on the ballot (Gibson and Robison 47). The need for over a majority of the House and Senate to place the amendment on the ballot to be voted on keeps small groups who are seeking personal goals from altering the constitution for their
On November 3 of this year, Texans will have the opportunity to vote on several proposed amendments to the Texas constitution. The first of these, Proposition 1, proposes to increase the homestead exemption available to property owners from $15,000 to 25,000. Supporters of the measure claim the amendment would provide much needed tax relief for Texans across the state, among other benefits. On the other hand, opponents of the measure argue that this proposed amendment would alienate Texans who don't own property, in addition to other complaints. Is this amendment a good or bad idea? This essay will attempt to shed some light on the matter by analyzing the arguments for an against the amendment. I'll also argue
Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, Freedom of practice, Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, Freedom to petition the government, and Freedom to assemble.
The expansion of the United States is such a vital part of American history, yet some often forget how it all happened. Many thriving settlers were given an extraordinary opportunity starting on January 1, 1863 that would end up laying the floor work for many Midwestern and Western citizens today. The rights and responsibilities to live on and maintain 160 acres of land may seem like a lot to take in for a student learning about an Act about land from the 1860s. However, think about all the people the Homestead Act of 1862 affected. There was a lot of pressure on the original homesteaders to make good use of their newfound land, the government was giving out land that wasn’t exactly theirs, and the Native American would have some their rights stolen.