Doesn't the state constitution allow government to declare an emergency and raise taxes without a public vote? If this is the case, won't this part of the initiative be declared unconstitutional making the whole initiative unconstitutional?

-- mark wilson (markw@wsu.edu), October 05, 1999

Answers

Appears to require a 2/3 vote from both houses to declare and emergency and only lasts for 12 months. But remember that these are elected officals and they want to be re-elcted. I can't see them declaring an emergency just to raise taxes and not think about their re-elction problems.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

"re-elect" there we go, dang keyboard gremlins

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

Isn't that still in conflict with the voting aspect of the initiative?

-- mark wilson (markw@wsu.edu), October 05, 1999.

I've never seen, in my lifetime (33 years), seen this state house pass anything through both houses with a 2/3 vote. I can only guess as to the reason, but a guess would be the argument that if I-695 passes what if there is an emergency that requires a quick increase (any resonable reason escapes me) in taxes, so they engineered that avenue thinking that 2/3 vote would mean it was REALLY needed.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

Well, you guys are forgeting a few things.... If the government declared a 'National Emergency' they receive additional funding from other sources. The Fed will step in and give dollars to assist the State that the emergency is in, they have done it in many other states. It won't cover all of it, its not designed to but it will help the states. Insurance companies will pick up a huge portion of the needed slack as well.

Washington is a Very wealthy state, we have have a huge software industry, huge manufacturing plants such as Boeing and shipping companies, large contruction companies, a major sea port, good tourism.... Washington has a lot of options.

I find it interesting that someone could claim that I-695 would be unconstitutional consider it doesn't infringe on the rights of the people, however gives them rights. I'd like to see someone take that to the Supreme courts... 'Mr/mrs Judge dere is dis ding in Washingtun and dey trying to make is so mees can votes on wedder or not me can votes, dat cant be dat consintutionalls.

-Tony

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 06, 1999.

Tony:

The constitutional questions are issues of consistency with existing precident, interpretations, and court rulings, concerning the state and federal constitution. They have nothing to do with your perception of the "rightness" of the provisions of the initiative. It could be a great idea, but if it is approved by a process, or enacts provisions that conflicts with the state or federal constitution, that part is still unconstitutional.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 06, 1999.

and a moot point untill it passes into law, since the state supreme court won't rule on what isn't law yet.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

"The constitutional questions are issues of consistency with existing precident," and precedent too!

-- The Spellmeister (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 06, 1999.