To the editor,
Su Ann Senso says to vote a No on three constitutional referendums because the writers have made them confusing for the voters to understand. It is if you're not proficient in …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in, using the login form, below, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
To the editor,
Su Ann Senso says to vote a No on three constitutional referendums because the writers have made them confusing for the voters to understand. It is if you're not proficient in English. However, the Journal has helped those who would be confused by the language. It's on page 2 of the Oct. 14 edition. What's confusing is that Senso states the first referendum or the first question, I am confused, is actually the third question. These are Wisconsin constitutional amendments, not laws. Not to confuse Senso, Federal laws apply to federal employment positions. Also the founders recognized a framework of dual sovereignty. States are semi-autonomous under the 10th amendment. I won't further confuse anyone regarding Article 6 clause 2 of the federal constitution.
Vote a YES on all three amendments to the Wisconsin state constitution. It sets in stone what the people want. Laws are nebulous and a judge can override it according to his views. Not the Constitution of the state of Wisconsin. The Journal explains the three amendments clearly.
Sanjeev Dhawan
Ellsworth
