On Nov. 6, the ballot titles and questions for the voter ID and same-sex marriage amendments will appear as the Republican-controlled Legislature wrote them, according to the Star Tribune.
The Minnesota Supreme Court on Monday affirmed the wording legislators chose, instead of those submitted by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.
On the ballot, the title above the voter ID amendment will be, "Photo Identification Required for Voting." Ritchie changed it to "Changes to In-Person & Absentee Voting & Voter Registration; Provisional Ballots," but Chief Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea and justices G. Barry Anderson, Christopher Dietzen and David Stras rejected his change.
The title above the same-sex marriage amendment will say, "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman." Ritchie wanted the title to say "Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples."
Justices Alan Page and Paul Anderson dissented from the majority opinion.
Now that you've read what the justices decided, what do you think? Explain your answer to the poll in the comments below.
As if Democrats don't try to shove their version of "religion" down peoples' throats? it may not be called Catholicism or some other "traditional" religion -- but it can fairly be called kneeling at the thrones of "global warming" or "diversity". Yes, I'd rather shred the safety net and have all charity funneled through private organizations like the Salvation Army or Goodwill or Churches or other organizations. When you have bureaucrats who don't care about taxpayers' money deciding how things are dispensed -- you leave open large gaps of accountability -- just waiting for n'er do well types to take advantage of. Name one "safety net" program that isn't widely abused and/or is broke. SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Section 8 Housing, and so on. Democrats only get elected because they have built up such large numbers of "takers" -- and consequently demogogue fiscal conservatives for having the meanspirited temerity to publicly oppose these programs. To keep generations of people from being productive members of society by enslaving them to government largesse at the expense of productive members of society is not only wrong...its evil.
I wonder, what is the end game for these Democratic leaders hoping to get everyone on welfare and beholding to the government?
"Many Americans, however, argued that the New Deal was a Pandora’s box of troubles that violated the Constitution and sought to impose socialism, although socialist leaders like Norman Thomas believed that FDR was not doing enough, complaining that the New Deal was “trying to cure tuberculosis with cough drops. Initial supporters like the “radio priest” Father Charles E. Coughlin turned on Roosevelt over deficit spending and the Federal Reserve. Louisiana’s “Kingfish” Huey Long challenged Roosevelt, promoting his “Share the Wealth” program that would have restricted how much the wealthy could earn and impose high taxes on those with the greatest incomes. Communists assailed the New Deal as “social fascism” and called FDR a dictator. At the other end, business leaders, believing they had been made the scapegoat for the nation’s ills, wanted a return to the old economic order, believing that the market would correct itself without the meddling of direct government interference." Ha. Sounds familiar, doesn't it. Read more at Suite101: New Deal Opposition: Criticism of FDR's Recovery Program in the 1930s | Suite101.com http://suite101.com/article/new-deal-opposition-a95119#ixzz25SQUyWmc”
We have been paying the price (and people younger than 55 will be paying a unfathomabale price) for decades long socialist programs that give people the illusion of a "free lunch".
Yeah. Ryan is right. We need to get rid of Social Security and Medicare. Come to think of it those public schools are a pesky expense, as are those socialist roads and bridges. What a wasteful boondoggle the development of the interstate highway system was . . .
Are you insinuating that it'll take another World War to get us out of this?
No. Fiscal stimulus can be accomplished without wars, but you are inferring that a fiscal stimulus (deficit spending) of a high order is required. Yes, that is true.
So we've got operation twist, the presses have been running non-stop on QE's 1, 2, and probably 3, we own most of General Motors and AIG along with Freddy and Fanny, and your suggesting that some fiscal stimulus through a bit of deficit spending will do the trick? Gee, why doesn't that sound like such a great idea? The only thing Helicopter Ben hasn't done is to make good on his nickname and dump the stuff from the sky. You should really look up fiat currency and check out what this is doing to your standard of living. And here I thought you were the one who was so concerned with your social security. My mistake.
I believe you to be an Internet troll leaving antagozing comments in an effort to get people agitated. Trolls should be ignored.
5 trillion by Obama in 3,1/2 years, the other 11 trillion took 236 years, yes he's good for us... Wonder why they want people focused on voter ID and who can marry who.....
Obama's hands are not clean. But if you think that turning control back over to the "Borrow and Spend" Republican Party will do anything - well - just look back when they were in charge and then ask yourself what proof is there that they will actually change anything and not really end up making the problem even worse?
The best we can hope for is that Romney is neither Obama nor Bush. We know that he knows how to run a business and we know exactly where Obama's path will lead us. Our choices are limited and barring a resurgence by Ron Paul there's really no choice at all.
There is this foolish notion that you can spend your way out of debt. I don't know of any reputable finacial expert would recommend that method. Yet somehow spending billions of dollars of "stimulus" is going to help repair the economy? A phrase from scripture comes to mind, "Professing themselves wise, they became fools!"
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/state-acknowledges-there-is-no-evidence-of-voter-fraud-645985/ If Minnesota Republicans really wanted to stop voter fraud, why did they reject the cheaper, FAR more effective, and bipartisan solution of electronic poll books, preferring instead to disenfranchise 4%-8% of all voters who are mostly poor and minority groups.
The last seven years of the Afghanistan War? How about Medicare Part D? How about Farm Subsidizes - Ethanol Subsidizes? Refunds for the weapons systems even the Pentagon says aren't needed but were kept around by Conservative Republicans as what amounts to nothing more than government jobs program?
The director of the popular romance "The Notebook". “I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want. Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?” Cassavetes said. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody, except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another. There ya go Susie, ammednd the law before it's passed.....