Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General: Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

SC06-2183 | SC06-2261

>> THE NEXT CASE, ON OUR
JEANED THIS MORNING, IS THE
ADVISORY OPINION TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL, CASE
NUMBERS, 0 # #
>> REPLY IT PLEASE THE COURT
LOIIS HUBENER WITH THE OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THIS
MATTER IS HERE ON THE REQUEST
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
ADVISORY OPINION, ON THE
FUNDING OF EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL
RESEARCH I PROPOSED NOT --
AMEND -- STEPHEN GRIMES ON
BEHALF OF OPPONENTS MAJOR HARD!!$$!!!!!!
HARDING ON BEHALF OF THE
OPPOSITION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OPPOSITION, THANK YOU.
>>T.
>> MR. GRIMES.
CERTAINLY, WITH FORMER MEMBERS
OF THE COURT PRESTHEENTH
ARGUMENTS PRESENTING ARGUMENTS
WE HAVE ASKED CERTAINLY WE
STAY WITH THE TWO ISSUES WITH
WHICH THIS COURT IS CONCERNED
THOSE ARE VERY NARROW ISSUES,
AND DO NOT ADDRESS THE
SUBSTANCE OF THE CONTENT OF
THE MERITS OR DEMERITS OF WHAT!!$$!!!!!!
WHATEVER THE PROPOSAL IS, JUST
REMINDER SO WE STAY WITHIN THE
PARAMETERS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PARAMETERS.
>> YOUR HONOR.
>> YOUR HONOR MY NAME IS
STEPHEN GRIMES, TOGETHER WITH
MY COCOUNCIL HENRY HANDLER,
PROPONENT REPRESENTING THE
PROPONENTS OF THE EMBRYONIC
STEM-CELL RESEARCH AMENDMENT.
>> THIS AMENDMENT, IS CLEARLY
ONE SINGLE SUBJECT IT PROVIDES
FORTHRIGHTLY THAT THE STATE
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO -- SPEND
20 MILLION DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$20 MILLION A YEAR FOR TEN
YEARS, FOR EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL
RESEARCH AND THE REST OF THE
AMENDMENT IS SIMPLY DETAILS
THAT RELATE DIRECTLY TO THAT
SINGLE SUBJECT, THE COURT IS
OFTEN SAID THAT THAT IS
APPROPRIATE, TO HAVE WITHIN AN
AMENDMENT.
>> WHY CAN'T WE INTERP-- SEEM
TO HAVE STRUGGLED OVER THE
YEARS WITH REGARD TO DEFINITE
AMOUNTS, PERCENTAGE TO SEE BE
SPENT FOR EDUCATION -- TO BE
SPENT FOR EDUCATION, AMOUNTS
OF MONEY AND SOME PRETTY BROAD
STATEMENTS IN THOSE OPINIONS,
WOULD YOU ADDRESS, THAT
WHETHER THIS $20 MILLION
REQUIREMENT FOR THAT 10-YEAR
PERIOD STEPS BEYOND THE LINE
OF PROPRIETY.
>> RIGHT.
>> WELL, THE -- THE ARGUMENT
THE OPPONENTS MAKE IS THEY
TAKE A TWO UNRELATED --
DICTUMS FROM TWO UNRELATED
CASES TRY TO MAKE A CASE THAT
THE REQUIRING THE EXPENDITURE
OF A FIXED SUM 20 MILLION
DOLLARS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY PERFORM
THE FUNCTION OF THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF COURSE
AT THE SUTSET WE SUBMIT
CLEARLY IT DOESN'T.
THE COURT HAS NEVER SAID THAT
THAT THAT PROVIDING SPECIFIC
SUM WOULD DO THAT.
THE CASE THAT EVERYBODY TALKS
ABOUT WAS THE ONE WHERE THE
40% OF ALL OF THE SCHOOL
EDUCATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDUCATION, EVERYTHING, THAT IT
WOULD HAVE THE OVERRIDING
EFFECT ON ALL OF THE BRANCHES
OF GOVERNMENT, YOU KNOW, EVEN
AT THE OUTSIDE, AT THE MOST IF
YOU COULD SAY THAT THIS
SUBSTANTIALLY PERFORMED A
FUNCTION OF THE LEGISLATIVE
BRANCH, IT STILL DOESN'T
AFFECT THE OTHER TWO BRANCHES,
AND IN ORDER TO SHOOT DOWN AN
INITIATIVE IT HAS GOT TO
SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT MORE THAN
ONE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
>> THIS WOULD BE MY QUESTION
THOUGH ON THIS FUNDING BECAUSE
I SEE THAT AGAIN WE DID SAY IN
THE 40% THAT THE MAVERICK
RESTRICTIONS WOULD -- MASSIVE
RESTRICTIONS WOULD LIMIT THE $$
STATE'S OTHER FUNCTIONS
REMAINING 60% THEN YOU HAVE
TOBACCO CASE, WHERE, FROM LAST
YEAR OR THE YEAR BEFORE, WHERE
IT IS REALLY MANDATE$$!!!!ING THE
STATES SPEND CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
MONEY EVERY YEAR ON THE
TOBACCO RELATED ISSUES.
BUT AT WHAT POINT WOULD THE
BUDGERY AUTHORITY OF THE
LEGISLATURE BE SO RESTRICTED
WITH CONSTITUTIONAL
ADMINISTRATES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ADMINISTRATES, THAT --
MANDATES THAT THE MANAGEMENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MANAGEMENTURE COULDN'T PERFORM
ITS FUNCTION APPROPRIATING
MONEY WE'VE GOT CLASS SIZE
AMENDMENT WE'VE GOT THE WELL
WE HAVE LIKE I SAID I DON'T O
MONOROYAL -- MONORAIL ANY MORE
BUT WE HAD THAT, TOBTO, LITTLE
AMOUNTS, AGAIN MAYBE WE HAVE
GONE DOWN THAT PATH, AND MAYBE
YOU ARE GOING TO SAY WELL THIS
IS THE DROP IN THE BUCKET SO
DON'T -- START HERE BUT MY
CONCERN IS THAT THERE WOULD BE
SO MANY SPENDING MANDATES,
THAT THE LEGISLATURE WOULD
ESSENTIALLY HAVE ITS ROLE AS
YOU KNOW BUDGERY AUTHORITY,
AND MAKING DECISIONS, HE IS
VERY INDICATED.
-- EVISERATED.
>> I SUPPOSE THERE COULD BE
SOME POINT YOU COULD REACH
THAT I SUMMIT 20 MILLIONS 20
MILLION OUT OF 59 BILLION
DOLLAR BUDGET WOULDN'T BE
THERE AS YOU POINT OUT THE
TOBACCO REQUIREMENT, TO USE
INFORMATION AGAINST SMOKING,
THAT WAS MORE THAT WAS
SOMETHING LYING RAN ABOUT 57
MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR THAT
ACTUALLY, THAT TOBACCO MONEY
WENT INTO THE APPROPRIATIONS
WAS APPROPRIATED OUT, YOU
KNOW, I THINK YOU POSE
SOMETHING THAT I GUESS IT IS A
MATTER OF DID HE GO -- DEGREE,
AND IF WE EVER EVER REACH THAT
POINT THEN I SUPPOSE IT WOULD
HAVE TO BE A POINT WHERE THE
COURT COULD STEP, IF AND SAY,
TOO MANY TOO MUCH.
>> ASIDE FROM THAT PROBLEM,
WHY ISN'T IT JUST A DIFFERENT
SUBJECT WHEN YOU ARE SAYING ON
THE ONE HAND LEGISLATURE MUST
FUND X, AND THEN NUMBER TWO
YOU MUST FUND X$$!!IN!!$$!!!! Y$$!!AMOUNT WHY IS
NOT THAT TWO DIFFERENT
SUBJECTS?
THIS AMENDMENT ALSO SAYS THEN
LIMITS THE COMPENSATION THAT
YOU MAY GIVE FOR THAT WHY IS
NOT IT THREE DIFFERENT
SUBJECTS?
>> WE SUBMIT THAT IS ALL
RELATED TO THE SAME THING.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU JUST
SAID SHALL FUND, EMBRYONIC
STEM-CELL RESEARCH AND DIDN'T
PUT AN AMOUNT, YOU KNOW, THAT
WOULD HAVE NOTHING, I MEAN,
YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME
PARAMETERS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PARAMETERS, IT IS SIMPLY A
STATEMENT.
WOULD IT BE SPEND THAT MUCH ON
THAT.
AND THE OTHER PART IS SIMPLY
RELATED DIRECTLY RELATED TO IT
THE COURT HAS OFTEN SAID THE
DETAILS, INVOLVING, WHAT I
SUBMIT IS A SINGLE SUBJECT, I
DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD
SEPARATE, WHAT YOU ARE GOING
TO SPEND, WITH THE DIRECTION
TO SPEND IT.
>> WHAT ABOUT, WHAT ABOUT
PEOPLE WHO SAY, WE WANT PEOPLE
COMPENSATED WE DON'T CARE IF
PEOPLE ARE COMPENSATED FOR
DONATING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DONATING, FOR SELLING, EMBRYOS
FOR EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL
RESEARCH?
WHY IS NOT IT LOG ROLLING TO
PREVENT SOMEONE FROM MAKING A
PROFIT ON SELLING EMBRYOS?
>> WELL, THAT -- THAT IS THE
ARGUMENT THAT THE OPPONENTS
ARE MAKING.
THEY SAY,OI WELL -- SAY WELL
HOW ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE YOU
SUGGEST, OR MAYBE THEY WON'T
WANT WHAT WE CALL A
THERAPEUTIC CLONING, THAT AND,
THEREFORE IT IS LOG ROLLING.
BUT THAT IS SIMPLY INVENTING
ANOTHER SCENARIO.
IF THEY DON'T WANT THAT, THEY
WILL VOTE AGAINST IT.
WE SIMPLY -- THE PROPONENTS OF
SIMPLY WRITTEN THIS AMENDMENT
AND IT SAYS THIS, IF THEY
DON'T IF THE VOTERS DON'T LIKE
THE SOMETHING IN THERE, THAT
VOTERS DON'T LIKE, THEY WILL
VOTE AGAINST IT.
OR IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT
THEY WISH IT WAS IN THERE
MORE, AND BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN
THERE THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE
AGAINST IT THEY WILL VOTE
AGAINST IT BUT THAT IS NOT A
LOG A LOG ROLLING IS WHERE YOU
PUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS INTO
THE SAME AMENDMENT, TWO
DISPARATE IDEAS INTO THE SAME
AMENDMENT.
>> WELL IT SEEMS LIKE, THE
COURT HAS INTERPAT THE TIMED
LOG ROLLING AS SAYING WE ARE
GOING TO PUT ONE PROVISION IN,
TO GET THOSE PEOPLE TO VOTE
FOR IT, WHO OTHERWISE WOULDN'T
VOTE FOR IT.
AND HERE IT SEEMS YOU ARE
SAYING, WELL WE ARE DON'T
WORRY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO
MAKE LET THE PEOPLE MAKE A
PROFIT ON THIS, WE ARE GOING
TO MAKE IT STRICTLY RESEARCH
NONPROFIT TYPE OF THING, AND,
THEREFORE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEREFORE, GO AHEAD AND VOTE
FOR IT.
>> I THINK THE VOTERS WOULD
WANT TO KNOW THAT.
I MEAN IT IS JUST PART OF THE
OF -- IT IS THEY LIKE THAT,
FINE, OR OF COURSE IF THEY
WANT TO HAVE BEING PAID FOR IT
THEN THEY MAY WELL VOTE
AGAINST IT BUT IT IS STILL,
THIS IS THE PARAMETERS, OF THE
AMENDMENT.
>> LET ME ASK YOU ON THAT, I
WANT TO THE IN THE BALLOT
SUMMARY!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
SUMMARY, IT SAYS THAT THEY
HAVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN
DONATED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
DONATED, TO MEDICINES, UNDER
DONOR INSTRUCTIONS FORBIDDING,
OR IS THAT ACTUALLY I DON'T
KNOW IF THAT IS IN THE VOOIM
THAT IS THE IN THE FIRST --
FORBIDDING -- INTERUTERINE
EMBRYO TRANSFER, IS THE -- AND
I GUESS THIS GOES BACK TO --
THE NEXT ONE.
>> THAT TERM IS HUMAN CLONING
THAT IS WHAT IT IS FORBIDDING.
>> SO THAT IS SO ALONG WITH
IT, AND I JUST WANT TO
UNDERSTAND WHY IN YOUR VIEW,
THIS IS ALL PART OF THE SAME
SUBJECT MATTER BECAUSE WE ARE
GOING TO HAVE THE NEXT ONE
TALKS ABOUT WE ARE NOT GOING
DESTROY LIVE EMBRYOS, IS THAT
THE IDEA HERE IS THAT WHEN
SOMEBODY WHO HAD A HUMAN --
HAD AN INTRO, BECAUSE --
EMBRYO THEY WERE TRYING TO GET
PREGNANTED THERE WERE EMBRYOS
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE
DESTROYED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DESTROYED, THEY WOULD THEN
THEY -- AT THIS POINT, THEY
COULD ACTUALLY SAY, I THOSE
COULD BE USED TO IMPREGNATE
SOMEONE ELSE AND YOU CAN DO
THAT; IS THAT CORRECT?
IS THAT ALLOWED?
IN OTHER WORDS -- SOMEONE$$'S
EMBRYO, CAN THEY --
>> WELL THERE IS MANY STATES,
HAVE NOBODY, FAVORS THAT I
KNOW FAVORS HUMAN CLONING.
>> BUT THESE ARE ALREADY
EMBRYOS CREATED.
>> YEAH.
>> SO --
>> BUT YOU COULD NOT UNDER --
UNDER THIS YOU COULD NOT PUT
THAT INTO YOUR -- TRY TO
CREATE A HUMAN CLONE IF COULD
YOU DO THAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT HAS BEEN TRYING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
TRYING --
>> -- HAS TO DO WITH HOW
CONFUSING THIS WHOLE AREA US
BECAUSE WHAT WE GET TO THE
NEXT ONE IT SAYS, WELL, CAN'T
DESTROY LIVE EMBRYOS, BUT THAT
THIS IS REALLY, THAT AMENDMENT
DEALS WITH PREVENTING ANY TYPE
OF RESEARCH, OR DEVELOPMENT,
OF STEM-CELL RESEARCH; IS THAT
CORRECT?
>> THAT IS TRUE, YOU CAN NOT
HAVE EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL
RESEARCH WITHOUT DESTROYING
THE EMBRYO.
SO THIS NEXT AMENDMENT IS THE
FLIP SIDE OF THIS AMENDMENT.
THE OTHER SIDE UNDERSTANDS
EXACTLY WHAT THIS AMENDMENT
PROPOSES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PROPOSES.
AND THEY ARE OPPOSED TO IT
BECAUSE IT WOULD DESTROY A
HUMAN EMBRYO SO VOTERS CAN
VOTE UP OR DOWN, ASSUMING THEY
BOTH GET ON THAT.
>> THIS AMENDMENT THE IDEA IS
PEOPLE SHOULDN'T GET INTO THE
BUSINESS THIS IS NOT ABOUT
HUMAN CLONING NOT ABOUT MAKING
A PROFIT ON TRANSFER ON THE --
>> YES, ON YES, UH-HUH.
>> WHAT IS THIS SET OF --
[INAUDIBLE]
MORE THAN, TO MAKE THAT OR --
>> OH, NO OF COURSE THEY COULD
DO MORE IF THEY WANT TO, THIS
I SEE THE STATE SHALL SPEND
IT.
YOU KNOW, THERE WOULD BE NO
PRO BUGS IF THEY WANTED TO
SPEND MORE -- NO PROHIBITION
BUT THIS IS A REQUIRING TO
SPEND THAT AMOUNT.
BUT, ANYWAY, I WOULD -- LET'S
GO TO OTHER QUESTIONS.
I WOULD I WOULD SUBMIT THAT
THAT IS CLEARLY JUST A SINGLE
SUBJECT, AND THE AS I SAY THE
OTHER SIDE UNDERSTANDS THAT IT
WOULD ALLOW THERAPEUTIC
CLONING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
CLONING, LET'S SAY OH, THAT IS
A NAME FOR -- SOMATIC NUCLEAR
CELL TRANSFER, WHICH WOULD
ALLOW THAT WHICH I CAN GO INTO
EXPLANATION WHAT THAT IS, I
DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT --
IS --
>> I GUESS THAT IS ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS THAT I SEE HERE, IS
IN THE -- IT SAYS, THAT --
CONATED MEDICINE UNDER DONOR,
INSTRUCTIONS FORBIDDING
INTERRA UTERINE EMBRYO
TRANSFER.
>> THAT IS -- THAT IS A PHRASE
THAT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IS
GOING TO -- UNDERSTAND, IS
THAT -- IS THAT PHRASE MEAN
YOU CAN NOT PUT THIS EMBYRO,
AND SOMETHING OTHER THAN A
HUMAN?
>> THAT -- THAT PHRASE IS
TECHNICAL PHRASE THAT YOU
CABINET DO HUMAN CLONING.
>> OKAY.
>> AND HUMAN CLONING WOULD BE
PUTTING THE EMBRYO IN
SOMETHING OTHER THAN ANOTHER
HUMAN BEING?
>> YES, IN A IN A WOMAN,
ACTUALLY, FOR YOU KNOW -- FOR
-- TRYING TO HAVE A --
DUPLICATE, LIKE THIS DOLLY
SHEEP BUSINESS THAT THEY HAD
IN SCOTLAND.
BUT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS
THAT, IN OTHER WORDS, SURE, IF
YOU READ IF YOU JUST REED THIS
COLD MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE
TECHNICAL LANGUAGE BUT IT HAS
TO BE WRITTEN TECHNICALLY FOR
THE SCIENTISTS AND THE MEDICAL
PEOPLE, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS
ALLOWED AND WHAT ISN'T
ALLOWED.
IF IT GETS ON THE BALLOT AND
THE ARGUMENTS, AN FLUSH OUT
EXACTLY WHAT THIS MEANS, THEY
HAD A MYTHED THAT THIS
PRECLUDES ADMITTED THIS
PRECLUDES HUMAN CLONING, THEY
COME RIGHT OUT SAY THAT, AND
-- BUT HE AND, WHEN IT GETS ON
IF YOU WERE TO GET ON THE
PLATT THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND --
BALLOT THE ARGUMENTS FOR AND
AGAINST IT MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR
WHAT IT ALLOWS WHAT IT DOESN'T
ALLOW BUT IT HAS TO USE
TECHNICAL LANGUAGE SO THERE
CAN BE NO DISPUTE IN THE
MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC, BUDGE
WHAT IS GOING ON WHAT IS
ALLOWED, HAVING -- OF COURSE,
YOU -- I AGREE WITH YOU, THAT
IT YOU KNOW, IF YOU DIDN'T
KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
YOU MIGHT HAVE TROUBLE
UNDERSTANDING IT.
BUT THAT IS WHAT -- THAT IS
WHY AND THE COURT RECOGNIZED,
THIS IN OTHER CASES THAT IT
GETS ON THE BALLOT AND THEN
THE PARTIES FOR AND AGAINST
EXPLAIN IT OR NOT AND THE
PEOPLE VOTE ACCORDINGLY.
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE
DIFFERENCE, BETWEEN THE TERM
USED IN THE SUMMARY, WHICH IS
"EMBRYO" AND THE TERM USED IN
THE AMENDMENT, WHICH IS "0
SITE" IS THERE A MEL
DIFFERENCE M THE TWO OR
SYNONYMOUS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SYNONYMOUS.
>> I THINK THEY ARE SYNONYMOUS
TO MY UNDERSTANDING -- WELL --
I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT,
NOW, I --
>> IS NOT THAT CRITICAL TO THE
TERP -- DETERMINATION WHETHER
THE SUMMARY ACCURATELY ADVISE
THE AMENDMENT?
BECAUSE IF IT IS SAYING EMBRYO
THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM AN 0
SITE THEN IT IS NOT AN
ACCURATE DESCRIPTION.
>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT
IS SAME THING, I YOU KNOW, I
REALLY CAN'T GO BEYOND THAT,
THE --
>> AMENDMENT, AND THIS HAS
EMBRYO!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
EMBRYO -- AND THEN IT GETS TO
NUMBER TWO -- [INAUDIBLE]
YOU USE THE WORD 00 SITE.
>> -- TERMS THAT THOSE --
[INAUDIBLE]
THE WORD EMBRYOS, HERE, CHANGE
IT -- OR HAS ANOTHER
DEFINITION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DEFINITION, THERE IS NO WAY
TO --
>> WELL, AGAIN, IF THERE IS
ANY PROBLEM, WITH THAT I I
BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE FLUSHED
OUT IN THE CAME FOR OR --
CAMPAIGN FOR OR AGAINST IT IS
MY UNDERSTANDING IT IS THE
SAME THING.
YOU KNOW, I WISH I COULD BE
MORE -- GIVE YOU A BETTER
ANSWER THAT IS JUST MY
UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
>> YOU ARE INTO YOUR REBUTTAL
IF YOU WANT --
>> OKAY, WELL, LET ME -- LET
ME HEAR WHAT THIGH MY OPPONENT
HAS TO SAY AND I WILL COME
BACK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. GRIMES.
>> MR. HARDING.
>> MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT.
MY NAME IS MAJOR HARDING AND I
HAVE A COUNCIL STABLE STEPHEN
EMANUELLE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EMANUELLE,AND RUTH, WHO WAS AD
MYTHED TO THE BAR SUBSEQUENT
TO THE FILING OF THE BRIEF IN
THIS CASE.
>> MR. HARDING LET ME ASK YOU
THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT QUESTION
THAT I OPENED WITH MR. GRIEMZ
AND THAT IS WE SEEM TO ALLOW
THINGS THAT WILL ACTUALLY
MAYBE EVEN COST A LOT MORE
THAN THIS, WHEN BULLET TRAINZ,
AND REGARDING TO DEVELOP IT,
LET GO HE THAT GO ON THE
BALLOT EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T
HAVE AMOUNTS YET WE THEN LOOK
AT ONE THAT HAS AN AMOUNT LIKE
THE EDUCATION, OR THIS ONE,
WHAT IT IS THE MAGIC IN THE
NUMBER?
AND IS IT DOES THAT MAKE IS
THAT COMMON SENSE THAT BULLET
TRAIN WILL COST YOU KNOW, FAR
MORE THAN 20 MILLION A YEAR
YOU, HAD DWLAET CAN GO ON THE
BALLOT AND THIS ONE COULD NOT.
>> CHIEF JUSTICE LEWIS THE
AMOUNTS HAVE NEVER BEEN IN THE
OPINIONS A MATTER OF
SIGNIFICANCE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SIGNIFICANCE.
>> OKAY?
THREE CASES ARE VERY INSTRUCT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INSTRUCTIVE ON DEALING WITH
THIS ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT
IT IS SINGLE SUBJECT AND
EFFECTS MORE THAN ONE BRANCH
OF GOVERNMENT, THE FIRST IS OF
COURSE THE PUBLIC EDUCATION,
WHICH THE COURT SAID 40% IS A
SPECIFIC AMOUNT AND IN THAT
WOULD ALTER THE LEGISLATIVE
DISCRETION MAKING CHOICES AS
TO APPROPRIATION.
>> ON THAT -- THEN, SPECIFIC
-- [INAUDIBLE]
-- IN IS THAT MASSIVENESS OF
IT THAT IS GOING TO LIMIT THIS
IS UNDERSTANDING QUOTING FROM
IT -- ON THE HE OTHER
FUNCTIONS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FUNCTIONS, 60% WHEN MANY OF
THE GOVERNMENT FUNCTION TO YOU
DO SEE THAT AS HAVING BEEN A
SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE --
OF THE PUBLIC EDUCATION
FUNDING OPINION?
>> TO THE EXTENT, NO, TO THE
EXTENT THAT HIGH-SPEED RAIL
AND PROTECT OUR YOUTH, DO NOT
MENTION THE AMOUNT AS BEING
SIGNIFICANT.
THEY DISTINGUISH THAT CASE IN
ALLOWING THE SPY SPEED RAIL
NICHE TO GIVE ON THE BALLOT,
AND THE -- PROTECT OUR YOUTH,
AMENDMENT, TO GO ON THE
BALLOT, BUT, THEY DO NOT DEAL
WITH THE AMOUNT.
>> IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING,
ACTUALLY -- -- [INAUDIBLE]
99THE YOUTH -- DOES FUNDING
PROVISION -- RIGID --
DESCRIPTIVE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DESCRIPTIVE, TO THE
LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE THE
PROPOSAL FUND THE PROGRAM, BY
-- LT. -- SLAUR -- 16% OF
THIS, I MEAN -- IT DOESN'T
REQUIRE A -- ACCEPTED BY -- OF
THE BUDGET, SPECIFIED
PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET ON
THE PROGRAM.
>> AND I THINK THAT IS VERY
CRITICAL, THE COURT, MADE IT
VERY CLEAR SPECIFIED
PERCENTAGE OF ITS BUDGET.
>> BUT IT ACTUALLY IS -- WE
SAY IT IS -- IT IS WHATEVER
THE 15% OF THIS TOBACCO
SETTLEMENT IS TO THE ENTIRE
BUDGET,$$!!!! -- ONE HALF OF ONE
PERCENT BUT SOME YOU KNOW,
BECAUSE A CERTAIN AMOUNT MUST
BE SPENT, EVERY YEAR, IN THE
FIRST YEAR -- 57 MILLION, IT
IS A -- PERCENTAGE OF THE
BUDGET.
HOW DOES THIS -- HOW ARE YOU
-- LEGISLATURE THAT THAT IS
GOING BACK -- THAT AMOUNT OF
MONEY EVERY YEAR?
>> BUT, THE TWO THINGS, THAT
ARE SIGNIFICANT, ARE THE
SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OR THE
SHEFK AMOUNT BOTH -- SPECIFIC
AMOUNT BOTHING PROTECT YOUTH
AND HIGH-SPEED DEAL WITH SHEF!!$$!!!!!!
SHEFIC AMOUNT, AND -- SPECIFIC
AMOUNT, AND THE -- AND THE
FACT THAT IT COMES OUT OF THE
GENERAL REVENUE BUDGET, AND
THAT WHAT IS THIS AMENDMENT
SAYS, IT COMES OUT OF A
GENERAL REVENUE BUDGET.
>> WHY AREN'T THOSE CASES -- I
GUESS I'M NOT QUITE FOLLOWING
YOU, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME,
THAT THOSE CASES ARGUE IN
FAVOR OF THIS SPECIFIC AMOUNT,
BEING OKAY.
IF WE HAVE THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT
PERCENTAGE, AND THE TOBACCO
CASE, HOW REALLY IS THIS
DIFFERENT?
>> IT IS DIFFERENT, BECAUSE IT
COMES OUT OF THE GENERAL
REVENUE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
REVENUE, AS OPPOSED TO THE
LANGUAGE IN PROTECT OUR YOUTH,
WHERE THE COURT SAID MORE
IMPORTANTLY THE PROPOSAL DES
NATURES THESE FUNDS FOR A
DESIGNATES THESE FUNDS FOR USE
MANDATEDED BY THE SETTLEMENT
AND ITS SAID THAT IT DOES NOT
COME OUT OF ITS BUDGET, TO
FUND THE PROGRAM, A SPECIFIC
-- HE --
>> YOUR ARGUMENT IS THOSE
MONIES ARE NOT IN THE GENERAL
SFLEVEN!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
SFLEVEN.
>> -- REVENUE?
>> ACCORDING TO -- PROTECT THE
YOUTH, THE COURT MADE A
SIGNIFICANT DISTINCTION AND
THAT DISTINNION HAS BEEN MADE
IN OTHER CASES, ABOUT, FEES,
AND TAXES HAVE FUNDED --
>> WHAT ABOUT THE HIGH-SPEED
RAIL!!$$!!!!!!
RAIL?
WAS THAT SOMETHING -- SOME
OTHER FUND OF MONEY, OTHER
THAN GENERAL REVENUE?
>> NO THAT CAME OUT OF THE
GENERAL REVENUE BUT THAT WAS
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE PROTECT
-- FROM THE PUBLIC EDUCATION
FUNDING CASE, BECAUSE THEY
SAID HIGH-SPEED DID NOT SET A
SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OR A
SPECIFIC AMOUNT, AND IT.
>> -- REALITY, IF YOU ARE
GOING TO FUND SOMETHING, LIKE
THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL, AND YOU
ARE REQUIRED, TO DO SO, WE
WOULD CERTAINLY BE TALKING
ABOUT A LOT MORE OF THE $$
STATE'S BUDGET THAN THE 20
MILLION THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT HERE, IN THE STEM-CELL
RESEARCH.
>> HIGH SPEEDY DID NOT DEAL --
HIGH-SPEED DID NOT DEAL WITH
THE AMOUNT.
>> AS LONG AS YOU LEAVE THE
AMOUNT OUT, YOU ARE FINE?
I MEAN IF THIS AMENDMENT SAID
THE LEGISLATURE MUST
APPROPRIATE MONEY FOR
STEM-CELL RESEARCH FOR THE
NEXT TEN YEARS THAT WOULD HAVE
BEEN FINE?$$!!.
>> WELL -- WE ARE ALSO MISSING
JUSTICE QUINCE THE FACT THAT
THIS IMPACTS THE ABILITY OF
THE GOVERNMENT -- GOVERNOR TO
VETO AND THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT
OUT IN THE CASES, AND AS --
>> BUT ANY TIME THAT YOU ARE
REQUIRING!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REQUIRING, THE EXPENDITURE OF
MONEY, YOU ALWAYS AFFECTING
THAT SO HE IN SOME MANNER SO
IN ANY SITUATION, WHERE AN
AMENDMENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED ON
THE BALLOT THAT WOULD REQUIRE
THE LEGISLATURE TO SPEND SOME
MONEY, IT NECESSARILY IMPACTS
THE $$GOVERNOR'S VETO RIGHT,
DOESN'T IT?
.
>> YES AND IN HIGH-SPEED YOU
SAID IT DOES HAVE SOME IMPACT
ON THAT, BUT BECAUSE OF THE
WIDE DISCRETION, THAT WAS GIVE
UNDER THAT INITIATIVE, THE IT
DID NOT IMPACT IN A
PRECIPITOUS OR CATACLYSMIC
WAY, AND --
>> THAT COULD NOT BE SAID
ABOUT THE CLASS SIZE
AMENDMENT, I MEAN THAT HE
CLASS SIZE AMENDMENT
SPECIFICALLY WAS A MANDATE FOR
CLASS SIZE, WHICH EVERYBODY
RECOGNIZE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RECOGNIZED, IN THE OPINIONS,
THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE AN
ENORMOUS IMPACT ON THE $$STATE'S
BUDGET, AND THE GOVERNOR HAD
NO POWER OR THE GOVERNOR
ANNOUNCE DZ ON MULTIPLE
OCCASION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OCCASIONS, HE WOULD HAVE
VETOED IT.
IS NOT THAT RIGHT.
>> WELL OF COURSE WE WERE NOT
DEALING WITH A SPECIFIC
AMOUNT.
>> BUT YOU HAD THE PROBLEM
WITH IT IS -- AS YOU KNOW,
WHAT LED TO THE -- OF THE NEAR
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS
THAT THE CITIZENS WERE PASSING
ALL OF THESE ENORMOUS
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT
HAD SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
SPENDING, AND SO, THE IDEA WAS
LET'S LET THE VOTERS KNOW WHAT
THE IMPACT IS GOING TO BE SO
THE WHOLE IDEA OF THESE
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS
TO TRY TO ESTIMATE HOW MUCH
WILL HAVE TO BE SPEND EVERY
YEAR.
HERE WE'VE GOT A VERY MODEST
AMOUNT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED,
AS A FLOOR AND IT WOULD BE TO
ME -- -- FUNDING MAYBE WE NEED
TO CLARIFY IT, SOME AT WEATHER
IRONIC THAT THE -- THAT WAS
BEING REQUIRED COULDN'T PASS
BUT SOMETHING THAT WAS SAY WE
WANT THE LEGISLATURE TO FUND
ENOUGH RESEARCH, SO THAT AS
MULTIPLE -- ELIMINATED IN THE
NEXT FIVE YEARS, YOU KNOW,
SOMETHING, OF THAT NATURE.
AND, HOW THIS -- EASIER ONE IS
BEING SO ARE THE VOTES TO
UNDERSTAND, AND FINANCIAL
IMPACT STATEMENT IS PRETTY
CLEAR -- MONORAIL, AND, MAYBE
ONE OR TWO OTHERS, THAT --
WHAT YOU DO SAY ABOUT THAT?
THIS IS -- ASSUME -- HE
SOMEONE TO SAY THAT DOES THAT
MAKE SENSE TO YOU FROM A
JURISPRUDENTIAL POINT OF VIEW
FOR SINGLE SUBJECT MATTER --
>> FROM THE STATEMENTS THAT
HAVE BEEN MADE BY THIS COURT,
AND HIGH-SPEED AND IN PROTECT
OUR YOUTH, AND IN THE 40%
CASE, IT MAKES SENSE THAT IT
IS CLEAR THAT IF THERE IS A
SPECIFIED AMOUNT OR SPECIFIED
PERCENTAGE AND IT IMPACTS THE
-- IT REMOVES THE LEGISLATIVE
DISCRETION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DISCRETION, AND IT ALSO
IMPACTS THE ABILITY OF THE
COURT OF THE GOVERNOR TO VETO
IT IMPACTS THE AREA OF CONCERN
OF SINGLE SUBJECT THAT DEELTZ
-- DEALS WITH ALTERING MORE
THAN ONE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
AND WHEN YOU READ THE
LANGUAGE, THAT -- IT -- IT IS
VERY CLEAR AND IT IS VERY
SPECIFIC AS TO THE REASONS THE
COURT DISTINGUISHED THOSE
CASES FROM THE 40%, THE SCHOOL
MANDATE CASE.
AND JUST PARIENTE, IN REGARD
TO YOUR COMMENT, OF COURSE, I
DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS FOR THE $$
COURT'S IMMEDIATE CONCERN TO
DETERMINE WHEN OR NOT THIS --
WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS THE
WRITTEN OF A LINE, BUT YOU
HAVE WITH THE HIGH-SPEED CASE
WITH THE PROTECT OUR YOUTH,
AND WITH THE 40% FUNDING, YOU
HAVE SPECIFICALLY SAID ENOUGH
TO SAY THAT YOU CAN NOT GO ON
TO THE STATE TO THE CHANGE A
CONSTITUTION UNDER THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE IS A
SPECIFIED AMOUNT AND YOU CAN
NOT AND WHERE IT ALSO IMPACTS
THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNOR.
>> BUT, AGAIN, LET'S --
COST -- POINT THAT IT WAS
APPEALED!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
APPEALED -- TALKS ABOUT
HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
DOLLARS, THAT IS THE COST, AND
THAT IS A -- BECAUSE OF
TREMENDOUS COST.
IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT
GOVERNOR COULDN'T VETO, AND
THAT LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO
HAVE TO APPROPRIATE.
IT WAS IT HAD SAID WE WOULD
WANT THE LEGISLATURE TO DO
THIS, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO
SPEND MORE THAN YOU KNOW 30
MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR, SEEMED
LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
MORE REASONABLE WAY TO LOOK --
TO APPROACH IT YOU ARE SAYING
NO, THE WAY WE ARE COMING UP
WITH THIS OPINION, THAT WOULD
BE, A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH,
TO SAY AT LEAST -- COMMENT, IS
NOT -- REQUIRING A MANDATE
ACTUALLY DEVELOP A SYSTEM AND
NOT PUT A DOLLAR -- PRICE TAG
ON IT, REALLY HAS -- I'M --
>> I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND,
YOUR CONCERN BUT I THINK THAT
IF A CAREFUL READYING OF HIGH
SPEEDY A CALIFORNIA READING OF
PROTECT OUR -- A CAREFUL
READING OF PROTECT OUR YOUTH A
CAREFUL READING OF THE 40%
ALSO IS VERY CLEAR THAT IF
THOSE AND --
>> YOU KNOW, OF THE OPPOSITION
SAYS, THAT THERE IS A LOT OF
DISCRETION HERE, AND --
CHASTISED US FOR NOT CITING A
CASE WHERE A LACK OF
DISCRETION WAS THE REASON TO
REMOVE SOMETHING, FROM THE
BALLOT.
BUT -- WITH ALL DUE --
>> A PROBLEM WITH THIS
ARGUMENT, STILL, ABOUT THE ON
ME, BECAUSE I -- THE MONEY, O
WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST WOULD
BE A WAY@Kr
AMENDMENT LIKE THIS, BECAUSE
IF YOU SAY SOMETHING TO THE
EFFECT JUST THAT THE
LEGISLATURE MUST FUND, OVER
THE NEXT TEN YEARS, STEM-CELL
RESEARCH, I MEAN THE
LEGISLATURE COULD IN THEORY
COMPLY WITH THAT
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BY A
-- APPROPRIATING 500 DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$500, OR
5,000 DOLLARS, OR SOMETHING,
BUT WE KNOW THAT THAT WOULD
NOT BE A MEANINGFUL WAY TO
FUND STEM-CELL RESEARCH.
SO IF THE CITIZENS ARE TRULY
INTERESTED IN HAVING STEM-CELL
RESEARCH, AND WANT THE
LEGISLATURE TO FUND IT IN A
MEANINGFUL WAY, HOW CAN THEY
DO THAT WITHOUT PUTTING SOME
PERCENTAGE IN, SOME KIND OF
DEFINITE SUM OF MONEY IN?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE
RESEARCHED THAT PARTICULAR
ASPECT.
I DO KNOW THAT I HAVE -- WE
HAVE RESEARCHED IN THESE CASES
ADDRESS HOW YOU CAN'T DO IT.
AND YOU CAN'T DO IT BY
AUTHORIZING NOW A SPECIFIC
AMOUNT SO AS TO REMOVE THE
DISCRETION FROM THE
LEGISLATURE AND ALSO, TO
REMOVE THE ABILITY OF THE
GOVERNOR TO VETO.
>> AGAIN, MAYBE THIS IS YOU
AGREE, AND CERTAINLY CLEAR,
THAT THE -- OPINION STANDS FOR
THE PROPOSITION THE
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CAN
MANDATE THAT THE LEGISLATURE
FUND SIGNIFICANT PROGRAMS AND
THAT BY SO DOING, THE GOVERNOR
CAN IMPACT BY NOT BEING ABLE
TO VETO THOSE PROGRAMS, WE
HAVE ALLOWED THAT --
>> IN SOME RESPECTS, YES, BUT,
IN -- IN A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF
PERCENTAGE, YOU HAVE NOT.
>> WELL WHY DON'T, LET'S
FOLLOW UP ON JUSTICE WELLS'
QUESTION I'M TRYING TO SEE
WHETHER WE ENT -- ENDS UP WITH
SOME RATHER SORT OF BLATANT
HYPOCRISY IN THE THING, IF WE
HAVE THE MANDATE HERE WITH
CLASS SIZE, AND THE COMMISSION
THAT GOES ABOUT ESTIMATE$$!!!!ING THE
EXACT THE FISCAL IMPACT COMES
UP WITH A STATEMENT THAT SAYS,
IN ORDER TO ENACT THIS
MANDATORY PROVISION PLACED IN
THE CONSTITUTION, THE
LEGISLATURE FOR THE NEXT FIVE
YEARS WILL HAVE TO APPROPRIATE
250 MILLION DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$250 MILLION FOR THE CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES NECESSARY TO
FULLY ENFORCE THE CLASS SIZE
AMENDMENT.
SO I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY
SAYING IF HERE THAT ACTUALLY
COMES UP THAT APPEARS ON THE
BALLOT, AND IT SAYS, IF YOU
VOTE FOR THIS, WHAT YOU ARE
VOTING FOR IS A MANDATE THAT
THE LEGISLATURE MUST SPEND
AMOUNT OF MONEY OF 250 MILLION
DOLLARS A YEAR, FOR THE NEXT
FIVE YEARS, IN ORDER TO
ACCOMPLISH THAT YOU, THAT THAT
WOULD BE PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT.
BUT THAT PUTTING IN 20 MILLION
DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING LIKE
THIS WOULD NOT BE ALL RIGHT.
HELP ME DISTINGUISH THOSE TWO
SITUATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SITUATIONS.
>> WELL, I THINK, JUSTICE
ANSTEAD!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
ANSTEAD, THAT THE COURT HAS
DISTINGUISHED IT, AND THAT IT
ALLOWED THE CLASS SIZE
AMENDMENT TO GO ON, AND DID
NOT ALLOW A SPECIFIC
PERCENTAGE AND SAID THAT THAT
REMOVED, FROM THE LEGISLATURE,
ITS DISCRETION AND IT REMOVED
THE ABILITY OF THE GOVERNOR TO
VETO.
NOW.
>> BUT I THINK, DOESN'T IT ALL
GO BACK TO I GUESS JUSTICE
PARIENTE WAS ASKING YOU WITH
THE ADVENT BY A LOT OF THESE
CASES WERE DECIDED PRIOR TO
THE TIME WHEN WE HAVE TO HAVE
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS,
AND SO, WITH THE ADVENT OF
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS,
DOESN'T THAT REALLY CHANGE THE
LAND ESCAPE POSSIBLY OF WHAT
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT?
BECAUSE WHAT WE WANT IS THE
PUBLIC TO KNOW HOW MUCH THIS
IS GOING TO COST THEM.
>> TO ANSWER THAT, THE COURT
HAS NOT SAID THAT IT HAS
CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE.
THE COURT IN ITS MOST RECENT
OPINION HAS SAID THE SPECIFIC
AMOUNT THE SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE
IS -- IS THE PROBLEM.
-- AND YOU HAVE DISTINGUISHED
THE --
>> CERTAINLY WHEN THE 40% CASE
CAME OUT, THERE WAS NO
FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
REQUIREMENT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REQUIREMENT.
>> I'M -- I'M NOT FOM --
>> LET'S BE CLEAR, THE COURT
HAS NEVER SAID THAT A SPECIFIC
AMOUNT CANNOT BE IN THE
AMENDMENT.
>> THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT IN
PROTECT OUR YOUTH OF 15% WAS
PERMITTED BUT IT CAME FROM A
SEPARATE FUND, AS SOME OF THE
OTHER CASES HAVE INDICATED.
>> THE COURT HAS NEVER SAID A
NUMBER OKAY, IS NOT
PERMISSIBLE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PERMISSIBLE.
>> THE COURT IN HIGH-SPEED
DISTINGUISHED IT FROM THE --
>> THAT IS MY QUESTION IS
FAIRLY SIMPLE.
AND THAT UT -- HAS THE COURT
EVER SAID THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE
A NUMBER A NUMBER BEING LIKE
IN THIS INSTANCE, 20 MILLION
DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
DOLLARS, OR IN JUSTICE $$
CONVINCE'S EXAMPLE, FIVE --
QUINCE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
QUINCE'S EXAMPLE 500 DOLLARS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!$500 HAS THE
COURT EVER SAID YOU CABINET
PUT A NUMBER LIKE THAT, IN A
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
MANDATE TO THE LEGISLATURE?
>> NOT SPECIFICALLY BUT THEY
SAID THE REASON THEY
DISTINGUISHED THAT A WAS
BECAUSE OF THE FROM THE 40%
BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC
AMOUNT.
AND I ALSO HAVE ARGUMENTS TO
MAKE ON LOG ROLLING, ALSO HAVE
ARGUMENTS TO MAKE ON THE
SUMMARY ACCURATELY REFLECTING
WHAT IS IN THE OPINION, I
THINK!!$$!!!!!!!!
THINK, SOME OF THOSE ISSUES
HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE
JUSTICERSORS JUS TISSES.
>> YOU CERTAIN DO NOT DISAGREE
WITH THE PRINCIPAL OF LAW THAT
AMENDMENT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT
CONTAINS DETAILS, SOMEHOW,
CONCENTRATE SUBSTITUTES LOG
ROLLING, HAVE TO; CORRECT?
>> NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT
DOES BUT I THINK THERE IS A
SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WHETHER OR
NOT THESE THINGS CONSTITUTE
DETAILS, I THINK THE FACT THAT
THE LEGISLATURE HAS AND THE
PUBLICITY THAT IS SURROUNDING
THE LEGISLATION REGARDING
STEM-CELL RESEARCH OVER THERE,
INDICATES THAT THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES MORAL, AND
ETHICAL!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!
ETHICAL, AND --
>> THAT IS NOT PART OF OUR
DISCUSSION AT ALL THIS
MORNING.
>> I$$ND, BUT --
>> --
>> LOOKING SIMPLY AT THE TWO
CRITERIA AND MORAL OR ETHICAL
ISSUES HAVE NO PLACE IN THIS
ARGUMENTS!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ARGUMENTS.
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT
THAT THERE IS AN ISSUE AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT THEY CONSTITUTE
DETAILS OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY
CONSTITUTE, AREAS OF THIS
INITIATIVE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INITIATIVE, THAT IS SOMEONE
WOULD VOTE AGAINST THE
INITIATIVE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INITIATIVE, BECAUSE THAT MIGHT
LIKE TO HAVE STEM-CELL
RESEARCH BUT BECAUSE IT
PROVIDES FOR COMPENSATION,
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, I
THINK IS MORE THAN A DETAIL.
>> WELL YOU CAN'T PROVIDE THAT
YOU CAN PAY FOR THE
REIMBURSEMENT THAT IS WHAT YOU
ARE SAYING AS SEPARATE SUBJECT
WHEN YOU GO INTO YOU ARE GOING
TO SPEND THIS MONEY, AND YOU
SAY THAT YOU CAN REIMBURSE FOR
THE COST SOMEBODY ENTAILS, FOR
THAT BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO
PAY THEM FOR A PROFIT BEING --
THAT IS SEPARATE YOU SEE THAT
AS A SEPARATE LOG ROLLING.
>> I THINK IT VERY SIGNIFICANT!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SIGNIFICANTLY COULD BE, AS
WELL AS THERAPEUTIC CLONING,
AND THOSE OTHER SORTS OF THING
FOR WHICH COMPENSATION --
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> MR. GRIMES DO YOU HAVE A --
YOU HAVE A FEW MINUTES'
REBUTTAL!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
REBUTTAL.
>> THEY USE TOBACCO THEY USE
TOBACCO CASE, IT SAID -- ALL
DUE RESPECT IT SAID THAT ONE
OF THE REASONS IT SAID THAT
THERE WAS MANDATED BY THE
SETTLEMENT, IT WAS BUT IT WENT
IN TO APPROPRIATIONS AND THE
LEGISLATURE WASN'T
APPROPRIATING IT THAT IS WHY
THEY HAD THE USE TOBACCOALD IN
THE FIRST PLACE.
>> THE PROBLEM IS, IN THE
OPINION ITSELF, THAT --
>> I KNOW IT.
>> THIS -- WE STARTED DOWN
THIS ROAD THE OBL TIME WE
REALLY STRUCK SOMETHING
BECAUSE OF FUNDING WAS PUBLIC
EDUCATION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EDUCATION, IT IS SO CLEAR AT
LEAST TO ME, THAT IT WAS
BECAUSE THE -- AMOUNT 40% AND
-- ENTIRE STATE BUDGET IS NOT
GOING TO -- ANYTHING
LEGISLATURE CAN DO, BUT, IT
DOES SEEM LIKE WE HAD THIS
KIND OF PIECEMEAL BY WELL THIS
OKAY BECAUSE OF THIS, AND, NOT
A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF THE
BUDGET!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
BUDGET, YOU AGREE THAT
ACTUALLY EVEN THOUGH WE SAY
THAT -- SETTING ASIDE 15% OF
THE ANNUAL -- TOBACCO
SETTLEMENT SAID IT DOESN'T
REQUIRE THEM TO APPROPRIATE A
SPECIFIED PERCENTAGE OF THE
BUDGET, IN FACT, IT COULD ENDS
UP BEING --
>> IN FACT, IT'S WAS IT THAT
WAS A MISSTATEMENT IN ALL DUE
REPUBLICAN -- RESPECT.
BUT, YOU KNOW THE COURT.
>> --
>> IS IN THERE
>> IT IS IN THERE.
>> # YOUR HONOR UNLESS THERE
IS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I
WOULD ASK IN ALL DUE RESPECT,
THE DEADLINES WERE GETTING
SIGNATURES!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SIGNATURES, IS IN JANUARY, AND
WITH THE $$COURT'S INDULGENCE IF
THE COURT WOULD RENDER A$$!!!!
AIZATION IN REASONABLY RENDZER
A DECISION REASONABLY SOON IT
WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> 15 MINUTES?
>> THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE ARE GOING TO HEAR ON THE
NEXT ONE, I GUESS THERE IS NO
OPPOSITION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OPPOSITION, ON THE BALLOT --
THE IDEA OF WHETHER -- SUBJECT
OR BEING -- TOGETHER -- ISSUE
I DON'T THINK -- IS IN $$
PUBLIC'S SENTIMENT, BECAUSE --
HUMAN -- [INAUDIBLE]
EMBRYONIC!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
EMBRYONIC STEM-CELL
RESEARCH -- YES, THAT THAT IS
-- WHY EMBRYOS -- I A OPINIONS
HOLD THE IDEA WHAT YOU HAVE
DONE -- -- LIMITED
COMPENSATION THE IDEA OF
PROHIBITING -- [INAUDIBLE]
EMBRYO!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
EMBRYO, PART OF IT SAYING THIS
IS AN AMENDMENT THAT WILL
REQUIRE SOME --
>> SUPPOSED TO BE ONE MORE --
>> THAT IS --
>> -- YES --
>> LATEST -- AS OPPOSED TO
JUST SAYING, GOING TO BE --
MILLION DOLLARS --
>> STARTED OUT THAT ONE --
>> YES.
>> --
>> TRIED TO BE SPECIFIC AS TO
WHAT IT WAS.
IF THE OTHER, YOU KNOW, AND,
IN THE COURSE AS I SAY, IT IS
-- IT WOULD DESTROY THE HUMAN
EMBRYO TO DO EMBRYONIC
STEM-CELL RESEARCH.
>> WELL, I HAVE A PREDICTION!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
PREDICTION -- ON THE BALLOT I
DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL OR NOT
BUT -- AND --
>> [LAUGHTER]!!$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!LAUGH.
>> THEN YOU REALLY HAVE A
DECISION TO MAKE, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU WE APPRECIATE THE
ARGUMENTS TO THE COURT WE WILL
TAKING THESE CASES UNDER
ADVISE!!$$!!!!!!!!!!
ADVISEMENT.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT
DAIS, THIS MORNING, WHERE,
REALLY IT IS GOING TO BE A
ONE-SIDED DISCUSSION, WE ARE
DEALING WITH,,,,,,
>>.
>> OKAY.
>> THIS GOES ON THE BALLOT,
AND -- [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE'LL HAVE FUN IN THE
FUTURE.
>> THE RELIEF ACTED.
>> UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS,
WE WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT
THIS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBJECT AND CLARE
REHABILITATED OF SUMMARY AND
--
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE --
HAVING EMOTIONAL APPEAL, THAT,
-- SO AGAIN, I -- [INAUDIBLE]
IF WE HAD THOSE -- WHATEVER IS
-- [INAUDIBLE] IF IT USES WHAT
MAYBE -- [INAUDIBLE] DO WE
LOOK AT THAT ISSUE OR --
[INAUDIBLE].
>> JUSTICE PARIENTE I WOULD
THINK IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE HAS
INDICATED EARLIER THAT GOES TO
THE MERITS AND THE COURT HAS
CONSISTENTLY SAID IT DOES NOT
GET --
>> BY USING DESTRUCTION YOU
ARE USING A NEUTRAL TERM AND
SO PROBABLY IS -- [INAUDIBLE].
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS
IT ACCURATE TO SAY THAT
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH
DESTROYS HUMAN EMBRYOS.
>> I THINK AS JUSTICE PAIR
QAENT -- PARIENTE INDICATED
EARLIER, WE HAVE ALL SEEN --
AND THIS IS NOT LEGAL RESEARCH
AND IF I AM PERMITTED FROM THE
NEWSPAPER, THAT THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT STEPS BEING MADE
FOR YOUR EMBRYONIC STEM CELL
RESEARCH, CAN BE DONE WITHOUT
DESTROYING THE EMBRYO AND OF
COURSE THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE
A MATTER OF GREAT CONCERN TO
ALL --
>> IN THE FUTURE, EVEN IF THIS
AMENDMENT PASSES, AS JUSTICE
PARIENTE MAY BE INCORRECT THEY
ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
>> IF STEM CELL RESEARCH CAN
BE DONE AND BOTH OF THESE
PASSES AND STEM CELL RESEARCH
CAN BE DONE WITHOUT THE
DESTRUCTION OF HUMAN EMBRYOS,
THEN THAT CERTAINLY IS A
POSSIBILITY.
>> BUT RIGHT NOW IF THERE ARE
EMBRYOS -- [INAUDIBLE] THOSE
EMBRYOS ARE -- END UP --
[INAUDIBLE].
>> NO, THIS ONLY SAYS STATE
FUNDS CANNOT BE USED FOR
RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION
THAT DEALS WITH THE
DESTRUCTION OF A HUMAN EMBRYO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
THE COURT WILL TAKE ITS
MORNING RECESS.
>> PLEASE RISE.,,,,
>> COURT IS NOW IN RECESS.,,,,,,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS].
>> 1, 2:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8...
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,,,,,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS].
>> CHECK T 2, 3, 4, 5.,,,,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,
[INAUDIBLE CONVERSATIONS],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,