Damnit, I’ve been saying this all along since this amendment was proposed and passed in Minnesota. All that the MN constitutional amendment raising the sales tax will do is give the State Legislature another source of tax revenue to raid when they want to do something. And it seems like the outdoor and environmental groups that supported the amendment are having some qualms with how the State is defining the language of the amendment:
“By changing the definitions you have spread out the purposes for which the constitutional amendment was dedicated to,” Ness said. “Our fear is that money will now be diverted to other types of projects other than what was intended by the vote of voters.”
I thought from the beginning that the amendment was just a backdoor tax scam, a smokescreen to raise revenue for whatever the Legislature wants at the time. By defining the amendment’s words as broadly as they have, it allows the state to do anything with the money. Welcome to the world of legal elasticity, you’ll see a few familiar faces – over there is the Interstate Commerce Clause, ooh ooh and over there is General Welfare!
Maybe we would all be better off if we didn’t approve unnecessary amendments that the government could abuse in the first place? Don’t give them words to broadly define by keeping laws simple and few.
Have it good,