Back to the subject of the thread...
In 2004, the Democrat-controlled Alabama legislature tried to pass a proposition which basically did two things:
1) Remove segregation-era language from the Constitution.
2) Establish that public education is a Constitutional right. (so they could enact a massive school tax)
In 2012, the (now) Republican-controlled Alabama legislature is trying to pass a proposition which basically does two things:
1) Remove the segregation-era language from the Constitution.
2) Establish that public education is NOT a Constitutional right. (so there can never be a school tax)
In both cases, those who favor the bill, claim opposition is "racist" because they don't want to remove segregation-era language from the Constitution, which has no bearing on anything since it's obsolete.
Then there is the issue of the longest state constitution in the world. (800+ pages) Do we continue adding to it, or is it time to rewrite the mofo entirely? Whether the latest incarnation of the proposition will pass or not, remains to be seen, but we can clearly see this is not really about the segregation-era language at all.
Has EVERYTHING to do with establishing the Constitutional basis for levying or not levying a school tax at the state level. Has NOTHING to do with the language which is now obsolete and irrelevant.
Wow, you still oppose even without the tax increase...
Where?
Stringy, it doesn't matter WHY the language was put into the Constitution, no one is arguing that aspect. The proposition to remove said language has been put before the people once before, in 2004. It included a line about how education was a Constitutional right, which would have effectively given the State of Alabama the authority it needed to adopt a statewide school tax. This proposal was introduced after attempts to pass a massive tax increase failed at the ballot box. Everyone knew why they wanted to pass this proposition, and it had absolutely NOTHING to do with removing the language. The language issue was used as means to goad people into supporting their attempts to constitutionalize a statewide school tax, because their previous tax increase measure failed. Now jump ahead to 2012, the Republicans have revamped the very same proposition, the only change being in the line that guarantees a constitutional right to education, changing that to NOT a constitutional right, and the very same people who screamed "racism" at those who didn't support it in 2004, are refusing to support it now.
Now those are the facts, and I clarified my errors almost immediately after I made them in my first response to you. IF you want to continue parading that around claiming some sort of moral victory over me, so be it! I can't help that your life is obviously that pathetic, but you're not going to get away with spreading lies about this proposition and the history behind it or intentions of it.
According to the information in the article and the wikipedia article linked, you are either still quite confused or you are LYING! The amendment in 2004 sought to remove the language that said there was no consitutional right to an education. That language is part of the constitution NOW and the current amendment seeks to replace the section with language reaffirming that there is no right to an education.
The 2004 amendment did not add any language and only sought to remove the entire section. It would not have included a tax increase. That's the bullshit lie that Roy Moore and other racists brought up against it.
No it's exactly what you lied and told me it wasn't. I said that the proposition sought to change the constitutionality of the right to education, so that they could, in turn, impose a school tax. That was exactly what the text of the proposition stated, as you proved. That was the sole purpose and intent of the proposition, it was cleverly hidden behind the excuse of eliminating segregationist language, and it FAILED TO PASS!
No.. follow closely pinhead... the 2004 proposition would have removed the segregation-era language which does indicate no constitutional right, which was the basis for the segregation-era language post-desegregation, but it would have replaced it with the opposite position of the constitutionality for public education, enabling the state to establish a school tax. The 2012 version also removes the segregation-era language, which includes the same thing it included in 2004, since that was never changed, and replaces it with non-segregation-era language that reaffirms there is no constitutional right to public education, thereby continuing to prohibit the state from establishing a school tax.
Go find and read the 2004 proposition, it DOES include the proposition that education is a constitutional right, and that was the basis for why it was rejected by the voters of the state, overwhelmingly.
I'm not going to run around in circles for you like some kind of poodle at a dog show, idiot. I admitted my error almost as soon as I made it, and I've RE-clarified that about a half dozen times now. If you just want to "WIN" an argument here, more power to ya! But I'm not here to do puppy tricks. The tax increase wasn't IN the proposition to change the constitutionality of the right to education. Tax increases have to be voted on in separate bills, when the constitution allows for that, which it currently doesn't, with regard to school taxes. Can you not get that through your brick-like skull? The proposition was to change the constitutionality regarding rights to public education, so as to ENABLE a school tax, which would have come at a later date in a completely separate piece of legislation, not a proposition on the ballot. As it currently stands in Alabama, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for the legislature to vote on and pass a school tax....that means they CAN'T DO IT!
And I explained to your stupid ass, WHY I am still opposed, didn't I?
The World's Longest Constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten entirely. I am a STRONG advocate of a State Constitutional Convention to do just that. AT WHICH TIME, we will remove all antiquated language and bring our Constitution up to date. Until we agree to do that, I am OPPOSED to adding MORE amendments and making the damn thing even BIGGER!
Fuck you, go read it... I am done doing puppy tricks.
Wow... TWICE in one day, pinheads have posted propositions or bills and I have thwacked them with their own source. BOTH times, the pinheads tried to dance around and claim the text didn't say exactly what it says.
and repeal portions of Amendment 111 concerning constitutional construction against the right to education,
LIE about this all you like. It's in the proposition YOU posted.
Wow... TWICE in one day, pinheads have posted propositions or bills and I have thwacked them with their own source. BOTH times, the pinheads tried to dance around and claim the text didn't say exactly what it says. AND TWICE, I've had to literally walk away from the thread shaking my head in disbelief at their obtuse stubbornness to admit their own defeat.
But I guess, when you're getting your ass handed to you by an Alabama redneck, it's the only tactic you can think to use? Poor pinheads, I feel sorry for ya! ...Not really, I just feel really sad for you.
According to the information in the article and the wikipedia article linked, you are either still quite confused or you are LYING! The amendment in 2004 sought to remove the language that said there was no consitutional right to an education. That language is part of the constitution NOW and the current amendment seeks to replace the section with language reaffirming that there is no right to an education.
The 2004 amendment did not add any language and only sought to remove the entire section. It would not have included a tax increase. That's the bullshit lie that Roy Moore and other racists brought up against it.
Liar! I told you the 2004 amendment sought to repeal that. You want me to bump it again?
You LIED and claimed that it granted a right to an education and included a tax increase. It did not.
No, I said it established education as a constitutional right, which would have given the state authority to enact a school tax.
That is the text in the 2004 proposition you posted, it's on Page 4, and underlined. Go to your link and read it for yourself.
Liar. It specifically states...
Amendment 111 relating to separation of schools by race and repeal portions of Amendment 111 concerning constitutional construction against the right to education
...
You can see where it does this on page 2, lines 13-18. It does not establish a constitutional right to an education nor does it include any tax increases as you had originally claimed or clear the way for any tax increases as you have retreated to now. You are a liar!
Amendment 111 was the method used by racist to thwart desegregation. You can see in the text of the section you thought most relevant and quoted above that the construction against the right to education was a part of Amendment 111 and the segregation era language.
http://arc-sos.state.al.us/PAC/SOSACPDF.001/A0002466.PDF