This comment has been deleted by Nick

1. Cases related to the 1908 Constitution (which was replaced by the 1963 Constitution in part because it lacked basic rights like protection against discrimination based on race, gender, etc. )

2. A court case involving a city charter

3. Court cases from out-of-state, most predominately the State of California.

Nick, you're right.  Labeling RMGN and its backers as treasonous goes too far.  The Constitution is pretty specific in its definition, and RMGN certainly doesn't fit.  That said, I expect you'll understand my zeal in defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bearing true faith and allegiance to the same.  The only thing I'm apologizing for is misplacing that zeal . . . and nothing else.  That's what I get for replying at nearly midnight after a really long night on the job.  (That rush you saw lasted for at least another two hours after you left.)

Now then, to affirm that the jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous today as it was in Sampson's time . . .

Responder RMGN, please refresh my memory.  Isn't there a Democrat sitting on the Court of Appeals?  And if that's true, then wouldn't a unanimous decision indicate that judges on both sides of the political aisle recognize this Trojan Horse for the garbage that it is?  And if that's so, then wouldn't that instead be an example of the court acting well within the limits of jurisprudence that the Michigan electorate - of every political stripe - voted them into office for?  I don't know, so you tell me.

Novi, your first response to me (labeling me a right-wing nutjob and then using that as an excuse to group me with Sean Hannity) is a straw man argument based on . . . well . . . I'm not entirely sure.  I'm trying to figure out just exactly how it is that you know me so well; better, clearly, than I know myself.  I haven't put that much of myself out here.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that all you'd know about me from this site (assuming that you've even bothered to pay attention) is that I'm a Navy Veteran, live in the Grand Rapids area, and am a Community Organizer for the Michigan Fair Tax Association.  That's it.  How you derive "right-wing nut-job" from that is beyond me, a fallacy of amazing familiarity at best.  The last I checked, I was certifiably sane.

And I'll go ahead and put it out here now . . . politically I'm a Centrist, holding to the viewpoint that government intervention should be selective, pragmatic, and not step outside specific limits.  You'll find out quickly, assuming that you wish to get to know me personally at all, that I'm a really big middle-of-the-road guy who has no real use for extremes of any stripe.  (And no, I don't necessarily agree with everything in the Centrist Manifesto, which was last revised four years ago.)

If you'd like to define for us all, please, exactly what a "right-wing nut-job" is, and then explain - based only on what you factually know about me - how I fit that definition, without resorting to an argument of laziness, or any other fallacy for that matter, then I'm listening.

And getting back to that Community Organizer gig, I'm pretty sure that I couldn't have performed that job in good faith if I had a problem with the voters.  (I certainly wasn't being paid for my time.)  In fact, I made it easy for them, with plenty of literature relevant to the MFTP available; educated voters made my job easy.  But you don't have to believe me, just chat up any of the 1,502 people who signed petitions personally circulated by me; I'm sure that either SofS or MFTA has that data on file.

But in claiming fraud, you ignore a critical difference between MCRI and RMGN.  While BAMN and their allies did indeed allege fraud, very publicly, you have overlooked the fact that every single court - including SCOTUS - to which MCRI challenges were appealed found no evidence of that alleged fraud, or at the very least not enough evidence to warrant overturning the initiative.  (I suppose I should make some allowance for Arthur Tarnow's dicta.)  By the standard of "innocent until proven guilty" fraud no longer stands as a valid argument against MCRI.

The RMGN initiative, on the other hand, is loaded with fraud, as I have said previously in this thread.  The most egregious example of this fraud is the now-infamous AFL-CIO PowerPoint presentation that lays out in detail exactly how the fraud was to be perpetrated upon the Michigan electorate.  Add to that the facts that the Board of Elections couldn't arrive at the 100-word summary required by statute, the initiative makes three dozen or so specific changes to the state constitution, the reference to the non-existent section of the constitution, and that RMGN didn't even bother to get a Secretary of State "approval according to form" before launching their drive and I submit that any reasonable person would arrive at the same conclusion that the CofA did.  This, of course, assumes that the PowerPoint "smoking gun" isn't damning enough.

Sure, I suppose that the argument could be made, and in fact has been made, that voters should read what they sign.  But you and I both know that probably about as many voters actually read the back-page fine print as computer users actually read EULAs before checking "I agree" and starting their download.  That's why the pre-drive "according to form" approval is necessary.  The whole purpose of that is to ensure that the summary on the front (which many voters will actually read) accurately reflects the contents of the back.  And this points up another critical difference between RMGN and MCRI.

MCRI actually went to the Secretary of State and went through the "approval according to form" process.  They knew that by doing so, they were going to catch flack from pro-preference forces (who have been shown to be actually willing to use "whatever means necessary" - including, but not limited to, violence and intimidation - to keep the ACRI off of the ballot in every state), but were absolutely willing to do so in order that no legal challenge of fraud would stand.  The fact of the matter is that BAMN and their allies have stated and confirmed, on the record, that they know that ACRI will be approved in every state in which it makes it onto the ballot.  Thus their only chance, again in their own words, is to see to it that the ACRI never sees ballot space.

(As a complete sidebar, the ACRI is now on the ballot in Colorado, Nebraska, and Arizona.  Expect them to be on the ballot in Oklahoma and Missouri in 2010.)

However, RMGN resorted to no such above-board behavior.  Indeed, their every decision seems to have been deliberately calculated to keep the Michigan electorate in the dark about their true intentions until such time as it would have been too late to matter.  And I submit that, but for the story breaking here on RightMichigan, and the discovery of the PowerPoint presentation by the Mackinac Center, RMGN would have been successful.  This indicates, to me at least, that the Marks-ist Coalition feared negative repercussions if their true intentions ever became public knowledge, it seems with good reason.

Do I trust the voters of the Michigan electorate?  You betcha.  I firmly believe that the electorate, properly and factually informed and educated on any given candidate or issue, will vote up or down according to what they believe is the best option on the table.  As I said about six paragraphs ago, as a Community Organizer, I absolutely enjoy educated voters because they make my job easy.

But what I do not trust is an initiative, or a candidate, or an issue that is deliberately constructed to deceive the electorate as to its true intentions.  And the Court of Appeals ruled - again, unanimously - that RMGN was exactly that.

Oh, and Nick... thanks for taking the lead on this one, and also thank you for allowing me to be a contrarian.  I went over to one of those other sites on the other side of the aisle, and raised a couple of questions and actually got one or two thoughtful responses and wanted to address them... and they won't let me log in now.

So, if anyone would like to find a Michigan connection to a quote from Hyman Rickover, or discuss the Michigan implications behind how the Iraq war did not give Russia the green light to invade Georgia, or how the logistics questions of the Democrats open ended commitment to a surge in Afghanistan have not been worked out and/or not realistic... please feel free to talk to me.

However, to make sure that I do so properly, I'm going to hold off until I'm not tired, not steaming mad, and not patiently working through my pre-launch checklist for a weekend with my children.

   1. Who paid to have RMGN drafted?  In-kind services.  Unlike the GOP's anti-affirmative action proposal and their anti-gay marriage proposal, there is no out of state money behind RMGN's.  If there is, it would have come in as a small contribution, likely through our website.  Our treasurer is Harland Nye, also of Hastings.

   2. Who actually wrote the darn thing?  Attorneys sympathetic toward our cause who contributed their time and expertise.  I reviewed the writing prior to public launch.  I admitted to having looked past the non-fatal Sec. 11 issue.  

   3. Why do you refuse to divulge the information?
As I've said NUMEROUS times before, divulging strategic information before necessary gives well-funded, well-organized opponents like the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, an unfair advantage.  Its self-defeating.  Surely even you can understand that.  

But be true to the rest of us Nick, you made your mind up before we even garnered enough signatures to get the issue on the ballot. As I've said all along, if you do not agree with our proposal, it really doesn't matter who is behind it nor who funds it.  And, if you do agree with our proposal, it really doesn't matter who is behind it nor who funds it. We've fulfilled all the state and constitutional requirements for our petition initiative to be on November's ballot.  What all of you should be worried about is the citizen's loss of their right to a petition initiative.  

I'd also like to know if the one removed comment by a previous blogger was a threat which I missed.  His late apology and the comments of others in response suggest that there was a serious issue in his comment.

My apology was late only if you define a five hour time lag between Nick's reprimand and my post as late.  Given that I'm a busy guy, and don't always have wide-open Internet access at my disposal, I doubt that would meet a reasonable person standard.

And the only thing that I apologized for was overzealousness.  I refuse to apologize for supporting and defending the constitution against all enemies; and Nick didn't ask for that.  He rightly reprimanded me for accusing you of something that your actions didn't meet the constitutional standard of and reminded me that punishment is best left in the hands of the Judiciary.  I took the reprimand onboard and apologized accordingly.

I still hold the opinion that you are de facto guilty of fraud.  You are free to disagree with me if you so choose.  But I stand by my position . . . and I have better things to do with my time than address it here.