Wednesday, October 6, 2010

美國人今年十一月大選將同時舉行155個公投
台灣人不知公投為何物
因為中國國民黨不准人民公投

不讓扁陰謀得逞吳伯雄吁全黨阻止"公投綁大選"

華夏經緯網 12月13日 訊:據台灣媒體報道,國民黨主席吳伯雄昨天說,陳水扁為了讓民進黨勝選,連日來的行徑已陷入瘋狂,可見陳水扁不但要“公投綁大選”,更要“公投毀 ...

In total, 155 measures are on the ballots in 36 states, a number roughly unchanged from previous years.

紐約時報: Voters Face Decisions on a Mix of Issues


The nation’s job woes may be the determining factor in which party controls Congress, but voters across the country will also have the chance to weigh in directly — through ballot initiatives — on some of the other contentious issues that have made cameo turns in the spotlight this year.

In Oklahoma, the ballot will feature a measure to ban state judges from using Islamic law, called Sharia, in court decisions, even though it has never happened. In Washington, voters will address an issue similar to one Republicans successfully kept from coming to a vote in the United States Senate: a proposed tax increase for the rich.
Voters in three states will have the opportunity to take a largely symbolic stand against the federal health care law approved this year by declaring that individuals or business cannot be compelled to buy health insurance. And in Colorado, leaders of all political persuasions are joining to urge voters to reject three tax initiatives they say would drive the state to fiscal calamity.
In total, 155 measures are on the ballots in 36 states, a number roughly unchanged from previous years. While lacking the thematic cohesion of years past — when states around the country simultaneously weighed in on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage or eminent domain — this year’s raft of initiatives, referendums and propositions nonetheless capture the political spirit of the season.
Perennially divisive issues are back: Colorado voters will decide whether to define human life as beginning at fertilization; Oklahoma voters will decide whether to make English the official state language; and, in perhaps the nation’s most closely watched referendum, California voters will decide whether to allow the sale of marijuana for recreational use.
But most of the measures to be decided on Election Day are routine housekeeping: fiscal proposals — like bond requests, property tax exemptions and licensing fees — that capture the constant ideological tug of war of taxing and spending.
“What it feels like is that the state legislatures are really fixated on the routine budgetary stuff, trying to keep their ships afloat,” said John G. Matsusaka, president of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California. “The ballot propositions seem to have become an outlet for all the other issues that the legislators don’t have the time to deal with right now.”
Government spending is at the heart of the three ballot measures in Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma — which, along with California, have the longest and most controversial lineup of ballot measures this year — that aim to nullify President Obama’s signature health care legislation. The measures, which are similar to one overwhelmingly approved by voters in Missouri this summer and approved legislatively in five other states, would establish that individuals or business cannot be compelled to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty. The effect, however, is uncertain, given that the requirement does not become effective until 2014 and is already the subject of lawsuits.
The proposed constitutional ban on judges’ using international law in general — and Sharia law in particular — in Oklahoma has caused local Muslim leaders to complain that the state legislators behind the proposal were “riding a wave” of anti-Islamic sentiment across the nation, citing the controversy over burning Korans and protest over mosques elsewhere. “Sharia law is not a threat to anyone, I don’t care where you live,“ said Saad Mohammed, a director at the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City. “Bigotry and prejudice is driving this.”
State Representative Rex Duncan, who is chairman of the state judiciary panel and the lead sponsor of the measure, said he knew of no judge ever citing Sharia law in a ruling in Oklahoma and could point to only one case in the country where the law had been cited. (In that case, a Family Court judge in New Jersey cited a man’s Islamic faith in denying a restraining order to a woman who said she had been raped by her husband. The ruling was overturned by a higher court.) But Mr. Duncan said the measure was “a pre-emptive strike.”
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, has called for a similar federal law, and Mr. Duncan said he had received inquiries from legislators in a dozen other states who expressed interest in adopting a similar ban.
The political rhetoric has grown particularly heated in Colorado, where Republican and Democratic politicians as well as labor and business groups have united to warn that the passage of three tax-cutting measures — dubbed the “ugly three” by opponents — would lead to such fiscal disaster that governing the state would be “nearly impossible.” They cite official state analysis that concluded that the budget would be cut by a quarter and the state would also be prohibited from taking on debt, preventing large capital projects.
“I’ve never seen a fiscal impact comparable to what would happen if all three of these were to pass,“ said Jennie D. Bowser, who studies ballot initiatives for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The Washington initiative would create the state’s first income tax, exclusively on individuals who earn more than $200,000 — the same figure favored by President Obama, who has proposed extending tax cuts for individuals making less than that amount but allowing taxes to rise for those making more. (The tax rate would be 5 percent and increase to 9 percent for those making more than $500,000.)
The debate follows the national framing. Supporters say that the tax is needed to continue paying for services (it would be devoted to education and health care) and would affect only a tiny fraction of people while allowing taxes to be cut for everybody else. Critics say the increase would discourage business investment and prolong the recession, questioning whether politicians can be trusted with greater access to taxpayer money.
As with all state initiatives, the back and forth features a local flavor. The pro-tax effort is being led by Bill Gates Sr. and endorsed by his son, the Microsoft founder; the anti-tax effort is being supported by the current head of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer.

3 comments:

  1. SayNoToIdiotBallMay 31, 2011 at 9:36 PM

    台灣人根本不需要公投。不相信嗎?
    傅雲欽律師說得好:
    公投可以防禦國家面臨的危難嗎?國家面臨的危難時,是拿起武器備戰,不是公投。所謂「防禦性公投」是異想天開。
    (http://taiwangok.blogspot.com/2010/09/08-dpp.html)

    ReplyDelete
  2. SayNoToIdiotBallJune 2, 2011 at 6:54 PM

    公民投票有必要,但要在宣布獨立,局勢穩定後行之。不宜在宣布獨立之前,除非有國際的維安保證。如沒有國際的維安保證,宣布獨立之前的公投很難進行(未投先亂),且可能無法通過(人民無知或無膽)。
    外援有最好,但不可依賴。獨立的正當性及台灣人民的勇氣是可以改便客觀的國際現實。德不孤,必有鄰。
    宣佈獨立就是攤牌,就是逼中國靠近臨界點。如台灣有不惜一戰的決心,中國不會逾越臨界點。
    什麼叫做「迂迴的方式宣示主權,而不直接宣布獨立」?像陳總管過去的作為嗎?那沒有用。宣佈獨立會改變現狀,從無主權變成有主權。宣示主權不會改變現狀。有主權而宣示主權,仍舊有主權。沒有主權而宣示主權,是在自欺欺人,仍舊是沒有主權。
    台灣要先宣佈獨立,取得主權,才有宣示主權的問題。沒有辦法靠所謂「迂迴的方式宣示主權」來取得主權。沒有主權而宣示主權,如陳總管過去的作為,只是被國際社會當作笑話而已。
    請注意,宣佈獨立就像嬰兒出生時的聒叫聲,用以敬告天下。這是一翻兩瞪眼的事情,無法暗中進行不讓人知,也無法投機取巧蒙混過關。
    傅雲欽 2008.06.06
    http://blog.roodo.com/taiwankuo/archives/5491719.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. SayNoToIdiotBallJune 2, 2011 at 6:56 PM

    回答長鎮 -「法理台獨」是什麼碗糕?
    http://www.wretch.cc/blog/work365days/10943357

    長鎮兄:
    多謝回應。
    民主可以使政客勝選取得政權,但很難用來獨立建國。人民怕死,安於現狀,很難要他們付出代價,對抗統派、中國及國際的壓力,來獨立建國。民進黨八年執政,迴避台獨,還是敗倒,就是敗在迷信民主,可為殷鑑。
    在中國會百般阻撓的情況下,如沒有國際監督,獨立公投應後於宣佈獨立而行,不宜先行,因為:夜長夢多(中美阻止,內部動盪),公投很難辦下去,縱使辦得下去,也因民心茍安,很難過半通過。民進黨政府公投失敗的經驗,可以參考。
    附言者,如果舉辦先行的獨立公投這是超憲法的公投,不受中華民國憲政體制下公投法的拘束。
    關於制憲,一般是建國後制憲(建國制憲),不是用制憲來建國(制憲建國)。建國是兵荒馬亂的非常狀態,制憲則是群賢畢集,理性討論的承平狀態。用制憲這種承平狀態的方法,來做建國這種非常狀態的事,除非有國際監督,否則,和上述獨立公投一樣,制憲會議很難開下去(甚至連選出制憲代表都有困難),縱使辦得下去,也很難過半通過。台灣的情況不特殊,制憲建國不是好辦法。
    至德者不和於俗,成大功者不謀於眾(中國戰國時代趙國大臣勸趙王變法改制時用語,語出史記趙世家 )。我認為建國要靠強人領導,不要靠民眾議決。由執政的獨派強人要抱著「我不入地獄,誰辱地獄」的決心,高呼:「Follow me!」,帶頭冒險犧牲,引領民眾「出埃及」。作法是:執政的獨派強人在部置妥當後,出其不意地宣佈獨立。這時只要能穩住局勢就好,民意可以不過半。為了穩住局勢,避免動亂,宣佈獨立時,要同時宣佈戒嚴,必要時效法1959年古巴的卡斯楚革命,槍斃二百人,關二萬人。
    獨派強人依法執政後宣佈獨立,屬於廢法建國的革命行為,當然超出先前當選時的民意授權(但不一定違背宣佈時的民意),也違反「中華民國憲法」。敗者為寇,成者為王。如果成功,局勢穩定,民意過半之後,舉辦新國會選舉或追認性公投,其先前民意或合法性的欠缺即可治癒。
    這是我的「執政革命論」。請參考附件我的「宣佈獨立,宣佈戒嚴」一文。
    你說:為了避免「現狀」被解釋成「在台灣的大中國體制已經被台灣民主化程序所合法化」,以致危及台灣主權獨立的空間和可能性
    ……云云。台灣法理上屬於中國,已經被台灣民主化程序所合法化,這是事實,不是曲解。台灣不是國家(法理上),沒有主權(法理上)可言。
    你說的制定「臨時約法」,困難度和「制憲」一樣。
    傅雲欽 2008.06.06

    ReplyDelete