Zera's Blog

A Citizen's View from Main Street

NH-HB1580 – New Hampshire Republicans seek to Embrace Foreign Law


Because moving forward to the 1950s is not wacky enough, state republicans in New Hampshire are considering traveling back to 1297AD for their justification for the legal basis of individual rights and liberties within new law.

HB 1580 – AS INTRODUCED

2012 SESSION

12-2335
08/03
HOUSE BILL 1580
AN ACT requiring a reference to the Magna Carta on certain legislation.
SPONSORS: Rep. Kingsbury, Belk 4; Rep. Twombly, Hills 25; Rep. L. Vita, Straf 3
COMMITTEE: Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification

ANALYSIS

This bill requires a reference to the Magna Carta on certain legislation.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
12-2335
08/03

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twelve

AN ACT requiring a reference to the Magna Carta on certain legislation.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Section; Magna Carta References. Amend RSA 14 by inserting after section 39-a the following new section:

14:39-b Magna Carta Reference. All members of the general court proposing bills and resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from which the individual right or liberty is derived.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect November 1, 2012.

What kind of restriction does this place on the recognition of individual rights and liberties? The first problem with this law is that there is more than one version of the Magna Carta. Lets look at the Magna Carta (1297):

Continue reading

January 7, 2012 Posted by | GOP, Legislation, Strangelove | , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Sen. Jim DeMint: Gays And Unmarried, Pregnant Women Should Not Teach Public School


While I believe that local school boards should be selecting their teachers, I also believe that they should not be selectively discriminating against qualified teachers on the basis of prejudice or religious intolerance. Not in public schools.

For those who disagree, there are private schools and home-schooling networks. Just do not expect the government to subsidize it with vouchers paid for with my tax dollars.

My tax dollars should not be used to fund the teaching of prejudice and intolerance.
My tax dollars should not be used to fund parochial schools.
My tax dollars should not be used to fund cult indoctrination through home school immersion.

My tax dollars should only go to public, secular schools. That is the only obligation I have, as a tax-paying citizen, to support the education of others.

New Rule:

They don’t teach religious doctrine in public schools,
and we don’t teach evolution, women’s suffrage, gay rights, reproductive rights, civil rights, science, English, math, social studies, history, astronomy, archeology, health, biology, physical fitness, art, literature, music, …, political science, constitutional law, or democracy in houses of worship.

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Article VI, U. S. Constitution

Oh, look. Public schoolteacher is a position of public Trust.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

October 2, 2010 Posted by | Education, Religion | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

   

%d bloggers like this: