In LINT v. Kitzhaber, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that Measure 3 (adopted in 2000), which added to Article XV of the Oregon Constitution a section addressing forfeitures, complied with the separate vote requirement of Article XVII, section 1. Justice Gillette authored the plurality opinion (joined by Justices Carson and Riggs), which concludes that Measure 3 did not alter any existing provisions to the Constitution, but, instead, makes three identifiable changes to the Constitution by the additions that it makes to Article XV. The plurality concludes that all the changes are closely related, reasoning that there is plainly a relationship among the changes, and that "it is permissible" to deem the relationship "close enough" to satisfy the separate vote requirement.
Justice Durham specially concurred and filed an opinion in which he concludes that Measure 3 made one constitutional change. He rejects the plurality's "closely related" test on the ground that it appears to replicate single subject analysis.
Justice Kistler, joined by Justice Balmer and Chief Justice DeMuniz, filed a dissenting opinion concluding that Measure 3 made multiple changes to existing parts of the Constitution, and that those changes are not closely related.
The opinion is fascinating (to me anyway) because it illustrates - by the way to court split on the issue -- exactly how difficult the Armatta analysis is to apply, and the degree to which there is still substantial disagreement on the court as to what sort of standard Article XVII, section 1, sets for proposed constitutional amendments. On a practical level, given that Article XVII, section 1, governs the people's power to initiate amendments to the Constitution (people who are not all lawyers), I wonder if the drafters of the Constitution intended the standard set by the separate vote requirement to be so difficult to understand and to apply that experienced lawyers and judges cannot agree on how it works?
Posted by: VagSefalaling | November 14, 2007 at 08:59 AM
Posted by: VagSefalaling | November 14, 2007 at 09:01 AM
Two new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others.
The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex.
The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat.
The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different.
It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.
Posted by: Kipquoniump | November 16, 2007 at 01:36 AM
That's a great blog entry. It gives me some ideas as to what can and should be done for my own aviation client. http://www.nikeheelsboots.net/
Posted by: Nike Heels | May 07, 2011 at 01:20 AM
May you are hestate to choose a suitable shoes to have a holiday or go to a dancing party? maybe the christianlouboutin is your first choice.love fashion style shoe
Posted by: CL shoes outlet | August 31, 2011 at 06:30 AM