Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

112th Congress HR1116 – Respect for Marriage Act


I usually reserve my analysis for the republican clunkers. This is the first time I have analyzed a Democrat Bill.

The Bill:


[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 1116 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1116

  To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State 
                        regulation of marriage.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 16, 2011
_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State 
                        regulation of marriage.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Respect for Marriage Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY 
              SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

    Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed, and the 
table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.

SEC. 3. MARRIAGE RECOGNITION.

    Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 7. Marriage
    ``(a) For the purposes of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus 
and agencies of the United States in which marital status 
is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that 
individual's marriage is valid in the State where the marriage was 
entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any 
State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the 
marriage could have been entered into in a State.
    ``(b) In this section, the term `State' means a State, the District 
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or 
possession of the United States.''.
                                 <all>

Analysis

Section 1:

This Act is about general marriage equality, but I like the term “Respect” too. Technical accuracy is rarely inspirational or engaging.

Section 2:

This raises a question I have wondered about before: is it enough to say that a section is repealed, or should the bill also include instructions to delete the section from existing code?

Section 3:

I am concerned with the difference in wording between DOMA and RMA.

Constitutional Authority Statement:

By Mr. NADLER:
H.R. 1116.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
Clause 18 of Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution,
and Section 5 of Amendment XIV to the Constitution.

Art. 1, Sec. 8, Clause 18:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I do not see anything in section 8 that applies to marriage. FAIL

Amend XIV, Sec. 5:

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

I do not see anything in the 14th amendment that applies to marriage. FAIL

Amend XIV, Sec. 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

This refers to state law and state restrictions, where the Bill refers to federal law and federal recognition. This Amendment is irrelevant to the Bill. FAIL

These are prove-nothing vague citations that fail to specify any particular power or authority. Mr. Nadler needs to be more thorough:

Article IV, section 1:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Article IV, section 2:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article IV, section 3, Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Related Bills:

From DOMA:

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

    (a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`Sec. 7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’

    `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.

    (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

        `7. Definition of `marriage’ and `spouse’.’.

To properly generalize the definitions, it seems to me that the starting point should be the original language.

If I had written the Bill:

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

  To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State 
                        regulation of marriage.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Respect for Marriage Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION ADDED TO TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE, BY 
              SECTION 2 OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT.

    Section 1738C of title 28, United States Code, is repealed and stricken,
and the table of sections at the beginning of chapter 115 of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to that section.

SEC. 3. MARRIAGE AND SPOUSE RECOGNITION.

    Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
``Sec. 7. Marriage and Spouses
    ``(a) For the purposes of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation,
or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the
United States in which marital status is a factor,
          (1) an individual shall be considered married if
              (A) that individual's marriage is valid in the State
     where the marriage was entered into or,
              (B) in the case of a marriage entered into outside any
     State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into
     and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
          (2) the person an individual is married to is considered to
     be the spouse of that individual, irrespective of gender.
    ``(b) In this section, the term `State' means a State, the District 
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any other territory or 
possession of the United States.''.
                                 <all>

Constitutional Authority Statement:

By Author:
H.R. 1116.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant
to the following:
U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. 1,
U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. 2,
U.S. Const., art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2
14th Amendment, sec. 1

Conclusion

This Bill applies to federal laws, contracts, policies, and programs. It does not apply to State laws, etc. with the possible exception where the two interact. Such a situation would be best resolved case by case rather than attempting a catch-all set of laws or policies.

The republicans will never accept equal rights or freedom of religion for beliefs they do not agree with. The majority of people, however, believe it is time to end this discrimination.

Obviously, I am not impressed with the wording or the authority citation, and I hope they fix it before it does get passed – someday.

July 21, 2011 Posted by | Gay Rights, Legislation | , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

112th Congress HR2417 – Better Use of Light Bulbs Act


This Bill has already failed, but it illustrates how the priorities of the republicans stray from the priorities of the country. It also serves as a commentary on the technical competence of knee-jerk legislation.

The Bill:

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H.R. 2417 Introduced in House (IH)]
112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2417
To repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
  with respect to lighting energy efficiency, and for other purposes.
_______________________________________________________________________
                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                              July 6, 2011
Mr. Barton of Texas (for himself, Mr. Akin, Mr. McClintock, Mr. Flores, 
   Mr. Hultgren, Mr. Turner, Mr. Wolf, Mrs. Lummis, Mrs. Capito, Mr. 
Scalise, Mr. McKinley, Mr. Burgess, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. 
 Poe of Texas, and Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                                Commerce
_______________________________________________________________________
                                 A BILL
To repeal certain amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 
  with respect to lighting energy efficiency, and for other purposes.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the “Better Use of Light Bulbs Act”.
SEC. 2. LIGHTING ENERGY EFFICIENCY.
    (a) In General.–Sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) are repealed.
    (b) Application.–The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6201 et seq.) shall be applied and administered as if sections 321 and 
322 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (and the 
amendments made by those sections) had not been enacted.
SEC. 3. MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING.
    No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regarding 
energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the 
requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using 
lamps containing mercury.
SEC. 4. STATE REGULATION.
    No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, concerning the 
energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service 
incandescent lamps shall be effective.
SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.
    In this Act, the terms “general service incandescent lamp”, 
“lamp”, and “medium screw base” have the meanings given those terms 
pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6201 et 
seq.), as applied and administered pursuant to section 2.
                                 <all>

Analysis

Section 1:

A cute use of an acronym, but it does not really apply to the Bill. The Bill is about choice, not best practices.
HR91 and S395 use the same name.

Section 2:

A sweeping statement that a section of law is repealed does not actually modify the law. Rather, it complicates the law with conditional statements. This bill creates the very same burdensome bureaucratic rat’s nest legal code that everyone wants to simplify and streamline. The final modifications of 42 U.S.C. Chapter 77 (a.k.a. 42 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.) are not specified here, but left vague and open to interpretation. This bill represents the legislative laziness that creates problems and drives up legal costs.
What they should have written might have looked more like:
 (a) In General.–Sections 321 and 322 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140) are repealed.
 (b) Application.–(precise instructions on how to unwind 110-140, Sec. 321 and Sec. 322)
 (c) Rulemaking.–(precise instructions on how to unwind rules required by or based on 110-140, Sec. 321 and Sec. 322)
 (d) Expenditures.–(precise instructions on how to remove funding for programs enacted by 110-140, Sec. 321 and Sec. 322)

Section 3:

This section is curious for a few reasons:
  1. With the development of full-spectrum LED lights, this section is rendered useless. LED lights can meet any requirement of standard that florescent lights could. The exception would be for ballast requirements that have nothing to do with bulb choice.
  2. Supposed protection from mercury in the bulbs (less than a thermometer’s worth) would be more than offset by the extra coal ash generated. Coal ash contains mercury, some of which goes into the air. Light bulbs containing mercury must be recycled, they cannot be put in the trash. The whole mercury-in-landfill argument is false.
  3. It explicitly prohibits state or local government from setting a higher standard. Setting a minimum national standard is one thing, preventing the states from improving on it is another thing entirely.

Section 4:

Another mindless anti-state/local sovereignty restriction. Interestingly, it may also be anti-innovation.
“There’s a massive misperception that incandescents are going away quickly,” said Chris Calwell, a researcher with Ecos Consulting who studies the bulb market. “There have been more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.”
and
“Due to the 2007 federal energy bill that phases out inefficient incandescent light bulbs beginning in 2012, we are finally seeing a race” to develop more efficient ones, said Noah Horowitz, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Constitutional Authority Statement:

By Mr. BARTON of Texas:
H.R. 2417.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:
This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
U. S. Const., Art I, Sec. 8, clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”
I might add:
U. S. Const., Art I, Sec. 8, clause 18:
[The Congress shall have Power] “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
Seems to be an incomplete Authority without the power to write the laws that exercise the allotted powers.
I would also like to note that this Bill was written under the assertion that the Federal government lacks the authority to write the law it is attempting to repeal, while using the same allegedly non-existent Constitutional Authority for this Bill.
It has been estimated that this Bill would directly cost consumers $6-12B in additional energy costs in order to feed anti-government sentiments. The indirect costs of additional air pollution and energy-dependence have not been calculated, to my knowledge. This is a very high cost for no purpose other than partisan politician gain.
{UPDATE} The republicans seem to have found a way to temporarily defund enforcement.
Oooopsy. GOP attack on light-bulb efficiency irks manufacturers

July 18, 2011 Posted by | Legislation, Strangelove | , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Light Bulb Act: House Republicans Poised To Repeal Incandescent Light Bulb Restrictions



1) Create uncertaint­y for light bulb manufactur­ers.
2) Funnel billions more to utility companies.
3) Accelerate need to build more power plants.
4) Add a multi-bill­ion dollar negative stimulus to the recovery.
5) Encourage arrogant, self-cente­red “patriotis­m”, AKA nationalis­m.

The lives of all Americans have become far too interconne­cted and interdepen­dent for the Plantation­-era concept of liberty to function.

“Nothing is more certain than the indispensa­ble necessity of government­, and it is equally undeniable­, that whenever and however it is instituted­, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.” – John Jay, Federalist 2

As more lives interact, more conflicts arise, and more authority to resolve those conflicts is required. Otherwise, we lose liberty through the sheer weight of population growth.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

July 12, 2011 Posted by | Regulation | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lori Klein, Arizona State Senator, Pointed Loaded Gun At Reporter Richard Ruelas’s Chest


Senator Lori Klein holding her .380 Ruger handgun in the Senate members lounge.

Mark Henle/The Arizona Republic - click to read

Oh, look at my cute pink girlie-gun with the laser sights and no safety…w­ha…[bang­]..[thud!] That’s not my fault! I’ve been kinda sorta trained in gun safety, and I didn’t mean to shine the laser in his eye! I couldn’t help it if he flinched and set off the gun! That was his choice. I didn’t force it on him. I have a right to carry a loaded gun, and I’m not forcing that choice on anyone! There are even places where *blind* people can carry guns.

Well, Ms. Klein, a gun is a weapon, not a fashion statement. A gun is made to kill living things. By treating it like an accessory or a conversati­on piece, you make a mockery of the right to bear arms.

You also demonstrat­e how people should have a good reason to be carrying a gun, more than simply to make a political statement or out of paranoia. You have demonstrat­ed a complacent or careless attitude toward guns that will become more common as more people carry for impulsive or frivolous reason. This makes tragedy inevitable­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

July 11, 2011 Posted by | Constitution, Second Amendment | , , , | 1 Comment

   

%d bloggers like this: