She supports placing the decisions on every modification of the comprehensive plan into the hands of local voters who live in the area controlled by that plan. Mike ertel describes the potential costs of the voting that would be required if the amendment went into effect. Ryan houck warns of unintended costs and consequences to the economy and local government from potential lawsuits and reduced economic development if Amendment 4 is approved. After the opening statements, the panel responds to written questions submitted by the audience. This presentation marks the fourth in a series of collaborations Carroll McKenney public Media has initiated with the seminole county Florida league of Women Voters through a series of on-going events produced by the league addressing a range of important community issues under the banner. This heard in Central Florida site also offers a comment section, and the ability to email a link to the site to a person you know who may be interested in the debate. This series has a companion page called Central Florida matters. Click on the orange cmf logo in the upper left of the web page and youll hear features important to those of us who live, work and raise our families herebecause central Florida matters!
The 26th Amendment - facts & Summary
It is referred to as the Florida hometown Democracy land Use amendment. On Wednesday march 17, 2010 the seminole and Orange county branches of the league of Women Voters presented a panel to debate the merits of this proposal. Supporters on the panel are lesley blackner, president of Florida hometown Democracy and Beth Dillaha, winter Park city commissioner. Speaking in opposition to the amendment is ryan houck executive director of Citizens for Lower Taxes and a stronger resume Economy. Also present heard is Seminole county supervisor of Elections mike ertel who addressed the issue of implementation of the amendment 4 but took no position on its value. The presentation, at the seminole county Educational Support Center in Sanford, was attended by approximately 80 members of the league, the public, the media and local elected officials and candidates for elected office. Marilyn Crotty, director of the john Scott daily Florida Institute of government at the University of Central Florida, moderated the proceedings. The discussion begins with 7 minute opening from statements by each panelist presenting the key elements of their support or opposition to the proposal. Beth Dillaha began by describing her support based on conditions and concerns of local governments like winter Park. Lesley blackner, who has led the fight for Amendment 4 during the last four years, speaks of the failure of Comprehensive land Use Plans to curtail sprawling growth because of the revisions and exceptions granted to developers by local officials.
Opponents are ryan houck executive director of Citizens for Lower Taxes and a stronger Economy. Also heard is Seminole county supervisor of Elections, mike ertel, who addressed the issue of implementation of the amendment. Feature length — 1:30:00, photos courtesy, gK Sharman and cmf public Media. Audio assistance kenneth Abreu, seminole county public Schools. After you launch the slideshow below, click next and Previous to rotate through the photos. Amendment 4 Ballot summary. Establishes that before a local government may adopt a new comprehensive land use plan, or amend a comprehensive land use plan, the proposed plan or amendment shall be subject to vote of the electors of the local government by summary referendum, following preparation by the local. The proposal above will appear as a ballot initiative facing Florida voters on november 2, 2010.
Civil War and sought to enshrine the rights of the newly freed slaves. The United States Constitution now has 25 functioning amendments. There have been 27 ratified in total, but one of these, the 18th, was Prohibition and another, the 21st, was the repeal of Prohibition. Amendment, ratified, description 1st 1791, rights to religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, petition 2nd 1791, right shredder to bear Arms 3rd 1791, quartering of Soldiers 4th 1791, search and seizure 5th 1791. Grand Jury, double jeopardy, self-Incrimination, due process 6th 1791, rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions: Rights to jury Trial, to confront Opposing Witnesses and to counsel 7th 1791, jury Trial 8th 1791, protections against Excessive bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment 9th 1791, non-Enumerated Rights 10th. Hear a gavel to gavel debate about the hometown Democracy initiative known as Amendment-4 to the Florida word constitution, which if approved by Florida voters on november 2, 2010 — would require voter approval of land-use changes to a countys or citys comprehensive land use plan. Proponents on the panel are lesley blackner, president of Florida hometown Democracy and Beth Dillaha, winter Park, florida city commissioner.
The 27th Amendment, on the other hand, was proposed in 1792 and did not achieve final ratification until 1992. Unlike all proposed amendments since. Prohibition, this amendment had no deadline. Some prominent amendments never are ratified. Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1972 and was ratified by 34 of the necessary 38 states. However, advocates could not get the last four states necessary and the congressionally-imposed deadline for ratification passed. The first 10 amendments were soon passed and are known collectively as the. Another cluster of amendments was passed following the.
Bensenville/Stormwater Reservoir 2,750,000, bensenville george. Bypass 1,671,775 Villa park 2nd ave. Sewer 549,000 Downers Grove virginia. (Alternate Project) 602,500 dupage Stormwater quarry (Alternate Project) 820,000 Bensenville Storm Sewer (Alternate Project) 2,153,809 totals 31,526,000 Action Plan The Action Plan for this grant, any amendments to the Action Plan, and performance reports will be posted on this website below as they become available. Amendments Substantial Amendment 1 cdbg-dr dupage county september 11, summary 2014 review Amendment 1 Executive summary august 8, 2014 Amendment 1 Executive summary Spanish August 8, 2014 Amendment 1 Appendix One - natural hazard Mitigation Plan Amendment 1 Appendix Two - dupage Stormwater Ordinance substantial Amendment. County farm road Wheaton, il 60187 Page last revised 05/15/2018). The, constitution of the United States provides two methods for making amendments.
Only one has ever been used. The United States Congress can pass a bill setting out a proposed amendment by a vote of two thirds in each body. Or a constitutional convention can be convened by a vote of two thirds of the state legislatures, which will propose one or more amendments. This has never happened and its unclear exactly how such a constitutional convention would operate. In either case, the amendments to the. Constitution only become effective after being ratified by 3/4 of the states. Some amendments are quickly ratified.
When the government collects information for administrative purposes such as tax collection and issuing licenses, the government does not have to gratify the 4th Amendment. Unfortunately, this information is sometimes used by investigators, misused by rogue government employees or released by government agencies. This in turn violates the fourth amendment rights of citizens as well as their expectations of privacy. Dupage county will be receiving a community development Block Grant - disaster Recovery Grant (cdbg-dr) in the amount of 31,526,000 in accordance with the disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-2). . This grant is being made available through the.
Department of housing and Urban development (HUD) to assist disaster recovery efforts in response to declared major disasters occurring in dupage county in April 2013. Cdbr-dr budget, budget Area/ActivityTotal Programmed to Activity, administration 1,521,000. Planning 600,000, strategic buy-out 4,191,805, hMGP buy-out Match 1,412,808, carol Stream - klein Creek watershed Flood Control Plan/ Armstrong Park facility 9,460,000, bloomingdale - springbrook culvert 230,000, villa park - downtown Green Infrastructure 1,000,000, warrenville - west Branch river Restoration flood Mitigation 2,820,000. Westmont - liberty park Improvement 700,000, glen Ellyn - lake ellyn Outlet 500,000, villa park - sugar Creek watershed Improvement 550,000, glen Ellyn - glenrise culvert Replacement 200,000, addison - strategic buyout 169,537, bensenville - george. Culvert Replacement 159,375, downers Grove - strategic buyout 292,500. Glendale heights - dredging 400,000, glendale heights - north ave. 400,000, glendale heights - demo detention 400,000, villa park - acquisition 326,250, villa park - north bierman Sewer Replacement 400,000, winfield - strategic buyout 421,950, woodridge - triangle park Improvements 400,000.
Amendment ii - the United States Constitution
This law provides that evidences acquired by violating the 4th amendment are not acceptable by the prosecution during a criminal trial. The court adopted this rule in 1914, in the. United States case, prior to which any evidence regardless of how it was obtained was admissible in court. Primarily, the exclusionary rule serves to prevent police officers from deliberately violating a suspects 4th Amendment rights. The underlying principle in the exclusionary rule is that the police would not violate the 4th amendment, if they know that evidence acquired through violation of this amendment is not usable when convicting someone of a crime. 4th Amendment in Modern America, since society criticizes crime while still valuing liberty, there will always a pressure between the privacy of individuals and the interests of law enforcement. Modern society has made it easier for criminals to hide crime, making it difficult for law enforcement to keep. This sometimes has necessitated the use of investigative techniques that trample on 4th Amendment rights and privacy expectations of innocent citizens. And state governments continued to grow in the 20th century, the amount of information that the governments collect barbing also increased.
These scenarios are referred to as special need exceptions that allow searches without warrants. Usually a search without warrant is conducted in a circumstance where a law-enforcement-officer personally witnesses a person committing a misdemeanor, or when the officer has a rational cause to consider that the suspect has committed a documented felony. Another exception scenario is when a person allows a search to be conducted, regardless of whether he or she is unaware of his or her right to refuse to cooperate. Open fields such as woods and pastures are also not covered by the 4th Amendment, provided that a search done therein would not have any logical expectation of privacy. Moreover, searches conducted at the. Border or in an international airport can be conducted with no probable cause or warrant, subject resume to the border-search exception. One of the major ways that courts enforce the 4th Amendment is through the use of the exclusionary rule.
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place. Purpose, the British government used to grant general search powers to British law enforcements, enabling them to conduct searches in any home they wanted, at any time with or without a reason. The founding Fathers did not like this concept. The 4th amendment was included into the bill-of-Rights, so as to uphold the security and privacy of individuals against prejudiced raid by the government and its officials. Applicability, according to this amendment any warrant should be judicially sanctioned for an arrest or a search. For the warrant to be regarded as reasonable, it should have a probable cause supporting it in addition to it being restricted in capacity, according to precise information provided by a law-enforcement-officer who has affirmed. The amendment applies to searches and seizures by the government, but not to those conducted by private organizations or citizens. Initially, the bill-of-Rights restricted the federal government only, but as from 1961 the supreme court decreed that the 4th amendment was applicable to the States through the due-process-Clause of the 14th Amendment. Searches Without Warrants, over the years, the supreme court realized that there are some circumstances and environments that would require an exception to the probable cause requirement.
Several progressive resumes and creative new themes are embodied in the Amendments; themes necessary for effectively achieving the air quality goals and regulatory reform expected from these far-reaching amendments. Specifically the new law: encourages the use of market-based principles and other innovative approaches, like performance-based standards and emission banking and trading; provides a framework from which alternative clean fuels will be used by setting standards in the fleet and California pilot program that can. With these themes providing the framework for the Clean Air Act amendments and with our commitment to implement the new law quickly, fairly and efficiently, americans will get what they asked for: a healthy, productive environment, linked to sustainable economic growth and sound energy policy. The 4th Amendment aims at protecting Americans from irrational seizures and searches. A search is any government intrusion into something in which somebody has a rational expectation of privacy. A seizure on the other hand, takes place when the government detains a person or takes possession of items. The fourth Amendment also requires any warrant to be sustained by probable cause and be judicially authorized. A probable cause is the grounds by which a law agent or officer has the basis to obtain a warrant for arrest, conduct a search, or make an arrest when considering criminal charges.
Facts and Case summary - texas
In June 1989 President Bush proposed sweeping revisions to the Clean Air Act. Building on Congressional proposals advanced during the 1980s, the President proposed legislation designed to curb three major threats to the nation's environment and to the health of millions of Americans: acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. The proposal also called for establishing a national permits program to make the law more workable, and an improved enforcement program to help ensure better compliance with the Act. By large votes, both the house of Representatives (401-21) and the senate (89-11) passed Clean Air bills that contained the major components of the President's proposals. Both bills also added provisions requiring the phaseout of ozone-depleting chemicals, roughly according to the schedule outlined in international negotiations (revised book Montreal Protocol). The senate and house bills also added specific research and development provisions, as well as detailed programs to address accidental releases of toxic air pollutants. A joint conference committee met from July to October 1990 to iron out differences in the bills and both houses overwhelmingly voted out the package recommended by the conferees. The President received the bill from Congress on november 14, 1990 and signed it on november 15, 1990.