[CRNMC] What Ben Price of CELDF said about the supes not endoding Measure S

[Baile Oakes]

Excellent, Tim !

As always, you have come through with great clarity and calm huzpah.

Thank you,

Baile


On Dec 28, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Tim Rice wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2014, agnes at mcn.org wrote:
> 
> | Ed and Baile,
> |      Should we send Ben's response to Dan Hamburg?
> 
> Perhaps start with suggesting Dan review Article 2, Section 1 of
> the California Constitution where it states:
> "All political power is inherent in the people.  Government is instituted
> for their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to
> alter or reform it when the public good may require." And Article 1,
> Section 3.  (a) "The people have the right to instruct their
> representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and
> assemble freely to consult for the common good."
> 
> Note the "instruct their representatives".
> 
> Then maybe explain to him that our country was founded on the idea
> that the people are sovereign. That the people are born with rights,
> and that those rights don't come from any government. Those ideas
> were recognized in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights when it said:
> "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
> construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." And
> then the original California Constitution of 1849, in Article I, Section
> 21, stated: "This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or
> deny others retained by the people." The current California Constitution,
> in Article I, Section 24 states: "Rights guaranteed by this Constitution
> are not dependent on those guaranteed by the United States
> Constitution.  .... This declaration of rights may not be construed to
> impair or deny others retained by the people."
> 
> Then point out that Article II, Section 10 of the California Constitution
> part a) says "An initiative statute or referendum approved by a
> majority of votes thereon takes effect the day after the election
> unless the measure provides otherwise."
> 
> 
> | 
> | Cheers,
> | Agnes
> | 
> | > Sounds like it is getting back to my original email regarding Norman de
> | > Vall's recomendation that we need to be proactive to assure the
> | > codification of Measure "S" into county law.
> | >
> | > Norman was a supervisor for a long time and I figured there was
> | > justification to his concern.
> | >
> | > Thoughts ?
> | >
> | > with love
> | >
> | > baile
> | >
> | > On Dec 26, 2014, at 8:53 AM, edward Oberweiser wrote:
> | >
> | >> edward Oberweiser <edoberweiser at gmail.com>
> | >>
> | >> Dec 24 (2 days ago)
> | >>
> | >> Hi Ben,
> | >>
> | >> Here is what one of our County Board of Supervisors is telling us.
> | >>
> | >> Ed Oberweiser
> | >>
> | >> Hi Agnes,
> | >>
> | >> I didn't mean to imply that three votes will lead to codifying Measure
> | >> S.
> | >> What I was saying was that three votes could codify a ban on fracking in
> | >> the
> | >> County.
> | >>
> | >> I don't believe the broader proscriptions described in "S" can be
> | >> codified
> | >> since they run so directly against state and federal law.  There is also
> | >> the
> | >> issue of an initiative addressing more than single subject (which is
> | >> apparently a flaw in the drafting of "S").
> | >>
> | >> Prior to the November election, Sups. McCowen and Brown wanted to send
> | >> "S"
> | >> to the Superior Court to determine its constitutionality; however, a
> | >> Board
> | >> majority voted to allow it to go to the ballot regardless of the
> | >> potential
> | >> for a state and/or federal constitutional challenge.
> | >>
> | >> Now that "S" has passed overwhelmingly, I would like to see the original
> | >> anti-fracking measure come back to the Board.
> | >>
> | >> I will talk with County Counsel to make sure I'm right about these
> | >> matters.
> | >>
> | >> Dan
> | >>
> | >> Ben Price
> | >> to Shannon, me
> | >> Ed,
> | >>
> | >> I think you need to arrange a conference call with Shannon Biggs - and
> | >> I'll join in if it helps --  to discuss why the Supervisors don't have
> | >> a legal option to pick and choose what they enter into the code. If
> | >> they or another party want to challenge the legality of the community
> | >> bill of rights, or any part of it, there are legal avenues to do so.
> | >> They may not assume the authority of a judge and jury and in their own
> | >> judgement chop up the CBoR to suit their own taste.
> | >>
> | >> _______________________________________________
> | >> crn mailing list
> | >> crn at lists.mcn.org
> | >> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
> | >
> | >
> | > _______________________________________________
> | > crn mailing list
> | > crn at lists.mcn.org
> | > http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
> | >
> | 
> | 
> | 
> | _______________________________________________
> | crn mailing list
> | crn at lists.mcn.org
> | http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn
> | 
> | 
> | 
> 
> -- 
> Tim Rice				Multitalents	(707) 456-1146
> tim at multitalents.net
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> crn mailing list
> crn at lists.mcn.org
> http://lists.mcn.org/mailman/options/crn