It's not an event. You're question-begging. It's always been ruled property in this state, and NOT an event.
And the same was true of many other states, until they ruled differently.
It's never done so before, ever, in the history of mankind. But keep dreaming.
I point to the 1950s and 1960s in the US as a counter-example.
Spoken like a true socialist.
Class warfare exists when one class is actuated to harm another class. That is class warfare. Obviously.
When you have a system such as ours that promotes equality of opportunity, and then also on top of that try to squeeze in a perverse concept like equality of outcome which requires harming one class for the benefit of others, that's when you get class warfare. Obviously.
Too many uses of the word "obviously" when that word does not apply. Obvious to you, maybe, but that is only because you have a specific set of beliefs -- which are not universal, by the way.
Shrug. I use words that are appropriate. Always. If you would prefer that instead of saying "it promotes class warfare" I say "it promotes the majority to make the upper class disfavored, taking from them for the majority's own benefit," we could do that, but it means the same thing: it's just slightly more specific and uses more words.
You choose to ignore the entire point -- and I'll point out in addition, it is quite clear that you choose words *you* think are appropriate, whether or not under general usage for those terms, those words would be appropriate. Class warfare exists as a function of class disparity. Those things that increase class disparity increase class conflict, and hence class warfare. If you're going to invoke the term "class warfare" please be aware of the historical context of the word, and understand why it's not a valid term for this case.
Once the facts get out -- that the Court has many times ruled this very thing unconstitutional, that it will almost surely lead to an income tax for far more people, and so on -- its support will drop dramatically. That's how these things work. It's like with the health insurance bill: you ask people generally, "should everyone have health insurance?" and people say yes. You get into specifics and people say no.
Whoa... back up here. Two things: 1. it is absolutely clear that the Court's past rulings on this issue were based on an invalid interpretation. This does not mean that the issue is Constitutional, just that the precedents you refer to do not apply, and the case must be made on first principles and other precedent, not on the precedent you refer to. 2. That health insurance example you give is very flawed. As a counter, when people were asked, do you support the health care legislation" the answer is no... but when asked if they supported specific measures, the answer was yes.
That's the real point here: to distract from the abject failures of the Democratic Party.
I'll agree that there have been abject failures by the Democratic Party. But I will not agree that the point of the Initiative is to distract from them. The point of the Initiative is to pass a progressive income tax, which would help correct some of the problems.
The system ALREADY HAS ruled on that. Many times. You liberals keep leaving out that fact.
The previous rulings of the system were based on a precedent ruling that has been overturned. You conservatives keep leaving out that fact. The current Constitutional objection has not been truly tested in court.
But that is precisely what she did, increasing spending a whopping 33% in her first term
Source, please... this site cites a 14% increase from 2003 to 2007, discounting the estimated 1.2B on health insurance costs that were reclassed (even with the 1.2B added back in, still under 20%). Given our biennial budgets, how is it possible that she enacted a 33% increase from FY04 to FY05? Did we really have that big a drop in FY04 from FY03 spending, that would cause the FY04 number to be 25% less than the FY05 number?
These people aren't fit to run a lemonade stand, let alone a state.
Good thing a state is not the same thing as a lemonade stand.