Preserving The American Political Philosophy

TWEET THIS http://goo.gl/VcBj8O UPDATE NOV 11 2014:  Since I wrote This post- I cam across the statute governing Bond Ratification- as amended by the 2013 legislature It looks to be that the sentence "To meet the requirement that the signed statement of the Treasurer of State accompany any ballot question for ratification of a bond issue, the statement may be printed on the ballot" was amended by adding this "or it may be printed as a separate document that is made available to voters as provided in Title 21-A, sections 605-A and 651" Section 605-A no longer exists and I am tracking it down. Section 651 says it can be posted outside the guardrail which separates voters from the rest of the world. I am writing a new post to cover this new information Update Nov 12, 2014!   The link I originally referenced is here ,  THIS IS HOW THE LAW WAS WRITTEN IN  2011 - showing the process of incrementalism at play In this link  part of the sentence below is struck out

TWEET THIS  http://goo.gl/L29LbO UPDATE! I just voted in Boothbay, Maine, where the bond questions on the ballot are not compliant with what is essential for the validity of the bonds to be issued pursuant to the Maine Constitution. None of the requirements set forth in Article IX Section 14 were on the ballot. Only the total amount of the bond debt and the interest is listed with each bond question. This means that constitutionally, what ever the outcome of the vote, the enactment of the bonds cannot be ratified. Article IX. General Provisions. Section 14.  Authority and procedure for issuance of bonds.   ........Whenever ratification by the electors is essential to the validity of bonds to be issued on behalf of the State, the question submitted to the electors shall be accompanied by a statement setting forth the total amount of bonds of the State outstanding and unpaid, the total amount of bonds of the State authorized and unissued, and the total amount of bonds of t

TWEET THIS!  http://goo.gl/5l9WdF Section 2 of the Home Rule Amendment ( Construction of Buildings for Industrial Use), was added to the constitution as section 8-A of Article IX in 1962 Home Rule Section 2.  Construction of buildings for industrial use.   For the purposes of fostering, encouraging and assisting the physical location, settlement and resettlement of industrial and manufacturing enterprises within the physical boundaries of any municipality, the registered voters of that municipality may, by majority vote, authorize the issuance of notes or bonds in the name of the municipality for the purpose of purchasing land and interests therein or constructing buildings for industrial use, to be leased or sold by the municipality to any responsible industrial firm or corporation. It was relocated under the 1973 codification. According to Marshall J Tinkle : This provision was added to the constitution as section 8A of Article IX in 1962 ( Am

Tweet This  http://goo.gl/v8sd33 Last Week Shawn Hannity aired a segment on eminent domain. The segment focused on row house homeowners in New Jersey who were being driven from their homes through the power of eminent domain in order to make way for a business development. The homeowners were not compensated well enough for their properties to afford a new home. In Maine we have a potential similar situation at The Brunswick Landing Maine’s Center for Innovation, chartered by special act of legislation under the name of The Midcoast Regional Redevelopment Corporation. The charter states that it is a “municipal corporation” and an “instrumentality of the state”- a contradiction in legal terms if ever there was one. The charter also grants this newly chartered “instrumentality of the state” the power of eminent domain over adjacent property. Making the MRRA a “municipal corporation” was clearly an attempt to get around Article IV Part 3 rd Section 14 of the Maine State cons