Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug
Question: have you read the briefs of either side?
|
I've been involved in challenges of constitutional amendments in Nevada, and would read the arguments, but the practical review of what is going on is obvious. We lawyers are trained to manufacture bullshit, bad faith arguments when our clients lose something they didn't wisht to lose, and pay you enough money and you would argue in court that the LDS Church is the spawn of Satan.
Typically, you challenge the numbers of signatures to get it on the ballot, and I'm confusing for the moment referendum versus amendment, as I know there are procedural distinctions where one goes in front of the legislature and one does not. After verifying the sufficiency of the signatures, you examine the language and the explanations on the ballot.
However, if the process is correct, there really is no historical precedent for distinguishing between "amendment" and "revision." A distinction with no difference except the Courts wish to reject the will of the people.
Go ahead show me the actual caselaw, it won't change the practical review. It's bullshit.