I did early voting this week. The language of this constitutional amendment, which talks about how it won't interfere with private property rights and economic activity, tells me it can't be used for any real environmental preservation. That and my usual antipathy for stupid rednecky bullshit legislation like this led me to say, "meh." Ultimately I voted no.
--------------------------------
R. Neal is on to something:
In order to exercise our constitutional right to hunt and fish there must be sustainable habitat for fish and game. Therefore, any action that threatens fish and wildlife habitat is unconstitutional.
That means stormwater runoff and agricultural waste that degrade water quality would be unconstitutional. So would coal-fired power plant emissions that degrade air and water quality and impact forest growth and sustainable fisheries. Mountaintop removal mining, clear cutting, and ridgetop development that destroy natural wildlife habitat would be a violation of your constitutional rights.
Wow that’s brilliant. He’s absolutely, 100% correct.
Ironically enough, similar state constitutional amendments are on the ballot in Arizona, Arkansas and South Carolina. Don’t you wonder how these things crop up all of a sudden at the same time?
