Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Display: Sort:
    to clarify (none / 0) (#4)
    by PTurner on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 02:17:11 AM EST
    The MSC decision in the original casino case made clear that even if the constitutional amendment would supersede or displace statutory law (i.e. the Gaming Act), that doesn't matter.  Because this is a proposed amendment to the constitution, potential conflicts with statutory law are irrelevant, presumably because the constitution trumps any statutes.   So, we don't quite care if the casino amendment mentions the Gaming Act or not--that is not a valid reason to keep it off of the ballot since it is a proposed constitutional amendment.  

    Thus, legally, even where a proposed constitutional amendment would displace existing statutory law (whether it is the Gaming Act or union initatives or whatever) those statutes don't have to be republished in order for the amendment to qualify for the ballot.


    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search