Grrr just because 70% of the voters voted for an amendment

[Florida_Geek]

Doesn't mean it is law yet.

While the Judge is right, I do not see the Florida Repug Leg doing what the voters wanted.

http://tampatrib.com/floridametronews/MGBBZ5VML1E.html

Nov 16, 2004
Malpractice Amendment Stalls
The Associated Press


TALLAHASSEE - A judge Monday temporarily halted a new state constitutional amendment that would yank the license of doctors who commit three acts of medical malpractice, saying the law must be clarified before it takes effect.

Circuit Judge Janet E. Ferris agreed in part with hospitals that sued, seeking to block the amendment from taking effect until some aspects of it can be clarified, most likely by the Legislature when it meets in the spring or by the courts.

..cut...

The amendment, known informally as the ``three strikes for bad doctors'' measure, was approved by 70 percent of voters this month.

An industry group representing hospitals argued it is not clear what the amendment requires. The group is seeking clarification of questions such as whether it is retroactive to doctors who already have three strikes, which doctors are included and what entity is responsible for revoking licenses.

..more at article...

[MrUnderhill]

1. Doesn't a Constitutional Amendment trump a judge?

How does a state judge overturn part of the state Constitution? He can't rule it "unconstitutional".

[JI7]

2. if it's unconstitutional according to the federal Constitution

[MrUnderhill]

3. But can a STATE judge make that ruling?

I thought it had to be a federal judge?


Either way... what federal Constitutional issue is involved in a "three-strikes" law?

[katmondoo]

4. In florida it doesn't matter

Anyone ever hear of Jeb Bush?

[Florida_Geek]

5. That's Gov Jeb "The Fixer" Bush

I am waiting to see what they do about the new Florida minimum wage.

[unblock]

6. of course state judges can opine on state constitutional amendments

they interpret the laws and the state constitution just as federal justices interpret the federal constitution.

they must interpret the new amendment. they can't overturn it, unless there was a flaw in the ratification procedure or if it violates the federal constitution. presumably neither is the case here.

however, they can interpret it in the context of the rest of the constitution and based on the language of the amendment itself. if it requires legislation to enact or clarify, that is well within the state judge's powers to require.

the questions raised, such as retroactivity, which entity is responsible for determining what counts as a malpractice strike, and exactly which practices are included in the term "doctor", are all valid questions that require legislation to resolve.


that being said, the legislature better resolve these questions, and not to the benefit of the doctors and hospitals, post haste, or a lot of voters will be rightfully pissed.