Jump to content

Did Mike Cox Help Us?

Recommended Posts

Taken from another post regarding Cox’s opinion on privatization, this is the diamond in the rough:


"Because the Act was a citizen initiative under Const 1963, art 2, § 9, it must be interpreted in

light of the rules governing the construction of citizen initiatives. "There is no essential difference

in the construction of statutes enacted directly by the people and those enacted by the Legislature."

OAG, 1985-1986, No 6370, pp 310, 313-314 (June 10, 1986). "[A] study of all of the provisions of

the initiated statute" may reveal the intent of the electorate. Id.


The key inquiry in construing an initiative is "the collective intent of the people," and the

people's intent may be measured by their "common understanding . . . of the purpose of the initiated

law." Id. The language of the ballot proposal itself and, when appropriate, the arguments set forth

during the campaign regarding the initiative should be consulted in discerning the people's intent.



The Michigan Court of Appeals has explained that initiatives should be "liberally construed

to effectuate their purposes" and to "facilitate rather than hamper the exercise of reserved rights by

the people." Welch Foods v Attorney General, 213 Mich App 459, 461; 540 NW2d 693 (1995). In

addition, the words of an initiated law should be given their "ordinary and customary meaning as

would have been understood by the voters." Id. To the extent that the initiative contains any

ambiguity, it must be constructed in light of the purpose of the initiative. Id. at 462."


Cox is basically saying that an initiated law should be interpreted in laymen’s terms with consideration of the intent of the voters/their understanding of the proposal and the language on the ballot initiative.


This is why he won’t touch the “grey areas.”


LEO and all levels of government have screamed from the beginning about the “grey areas” of the law. If there are grey areas, then any such grey area must be interpreted in the eyes of the voter – not the legislature or by legal professionals. This is what scares Mr. Cox; he doesn’t want to have to admit what the voters were thinking


Applying Mr. Cox’s opinion above, these “grey areas” must lean towards:


1. the intent of the voters (to allow sick people safe, uninterrupted access to cannabis therapy),

2. Common understanding (law grants medical use/transfer to patients and caregivers – transfers between cardholders are protected)

3. Ballot initiative language (“Should registered and unregistered patients and caregivers be allowed …”)


Grey areas will be decided based on what we, the voters, believe we voted on. It is very important that we broadcast our interpretation of the law – what we thought we voted on. The law says what we, collectively, believe it says!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks much GreatLakesMeds,


I missed that the first time around. It gives me hope for the direction this debate might take.

I say leave the law alone and stop arresting patients because LEO is losing out on OVERTIME and forcing themto hunt down VIOLENT DRUG offenders using crack,heroin and Cocain, and METH. Leave the peaceful Medical MJ growers live in peace. Enough of this reefer madness. We are all sick and tired of wasting money on nothing. We do not harm society. we help people. We do not cause people to rob stores or break into homes to get a fix.


All thes Sheriffs, judges and prosecuting attorneys will all be voted out soon enough. There time has past. And the next generations are sick and disgusted of what the past generations have done. The tide is coming in and we will sweep out those that withhold the WILL OF THE PEOPLE<<<<!!!!


9-8-10 protest at 1200 North Telegraph Oakland COunty Courthouse.!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...