From: thor@surt.atd.ucar.edu (Richard E. Neitzel)
Subject: Re: Amendment 2.
Organization: National Center for Atmospheric Research
Distribution: co
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:43:43 GMT

In article <BxAz50.EvL@da_vinci.it.uswc.uswest.com>, ljlucas@lookout.it.uswc.uswest.com 
|> (Lori Lucas) writes:
|> It seems to me that one thing that will come out of Amendment 2 passing is that Boulder 
|> and Denver are home-rule cities.  What right do people in the rest of   the state have to 
|> tell us what additional laws we can vote into existence in
|> our cities as long as those laws don't conflict with EXISTING state or federal
|> law?
|> 

Ah, but this isn't a law it is an amendment. The state (& federal) constitutions take
priority over all local law making bodies. If Denver & Boulder want some special right
based on home rule, why not apply the same in the states? Only those areas of law not
expressly covered by the appropriate constitution are left to lower governments. This new
amendment expressly removes an area of law from the jurisdiction of local goverenments. 

As for the people in the rest of the state invalidating laws that "conflict with EXISTING 
state or federal law", what are you asking for - some type of frozen system, so that any
home-rule law is preserved if it was legal at the time of issue? Does this mean that if 
one had had a law making it illegal for women to vote prior to the appropriate federal
amendment (a law that would have perfectly legal when passed), home-rule therefore requires
that while other jurisdictions allow women to vote home-rule cities could legally prevent
this in their jurisdiction? 

Like it or not, some local laws are now in conflict with state law. I don't see how home-rule
makes much difference, since home-rule was granted by the state with the implicit
understanding that the rules could be changed at the whim of the state. That's the whole idea
behind our political system - change. Based on what the majority of voters desire, the
government acts. Owning slaves was once perfectly legal - until the majority decided
otherwise (enforcing it took a bloody war - maybe Boulder & Denver would like to secede ;-)).
It could be legal again tommorrow if that's what the majority desired.

Perhaps you should consider that the rule of law has little to do with morality. Democracy
is the rule of the majority - period. Minority views (meaning those that do not have
sufficient support to change laws, not views of some "minority" group, though they may
overlap) have no weight in law. 

|> If people don't like the covenent rule in a particular subdivision, they don't
|> move in.  If the don't like the laws in one city, they don't have to live there.

If you don't like the rules in Colorado, you don't have to live there. Utah, Wyoming, etc.
are right next door! What a foolish agruement. Don't you see that it can turned against you
quite easily? If the local convenent prohibits Jews/blacks/gays/Irish - well it you don't
like it don't move in.

If you don't like what has been done, don't try and end run it with home-rule nonsense.
Accept the temporary defeat and try and overturn it the most logical and effective way -
repeal the amendment. Remember a majority of voters approved it - so defeating via home-rule
means nothing. New amendments can easily be floated - what if voters decide to overturn
home-rule & restore amendment 2? 

-- 
Richard Neitzel thor@thor.atd.ucar.edu          Torren med sitt skjegg
National Center For Atmospheric Research        lokkar borni under sole-vegg
Box 3000 Boulder, CO 80307-3000	                Gjo'i med sitt shinn
303-497-2057                                    jagar borni inn.
Newsgroups: co.general