Pirate Fish image courtesy of the CotFSM.

A bill, introduced today by Representative Andrew Koenig (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1587

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES KOENIG (Sponsor), BRATTIN, LICHTENEGGER, BAHR, HIGDON, CRAWFORD AND WIELAND (Co-sponsors).

5248L.01I     D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 170, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to teacher academic freedom to teach scientific evidence regarding evolution.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.335, to read as follows:

           170.335. 1. The state board of education, public elementary and secondary school governing authorities, superintendents of schools, school system administrators, and public elementary and secondary school principals and administrators shall endeavor to create an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that encourages students to explore scientific questions, learn about scientific evidence, develop critical thinking skills, and respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues, including biological and chemical evolution. Such educational authorities in this state shall also endeavor to assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies. Toward this end, teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of the theory of biological and hypotheses of chemical evolution.

           2. Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, superintendent of schools, or school system administrator, nor any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of biological or chemical evolution whenever these subjects are taught within the course curriculum schedule.

           3. This section only protects the teaching of scientific information and this section shall not be construed to promote any theistic or nontheistic religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of theistic or nontheistic religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against theistic or nontheistic religion. Scientific information includes physical evidence and logical inferences based upon evidence.

           4. No later than the start of the 2015-16 school year, the department of elementary and secondary education shall notify all public school superintendents of the provisions of this section. Each superintendent shall then disseminate to all employees within his or her school system a copy of this section.

[emphasis in original]

And Pastafarians are going to want in on the act (from their past):

Open Letter To Kansas School Board

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.

What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years….

[….]

[emphasis added]

Anyone want to bet they won’t press the issue?

Previously:

HB 291: keping misooree stoopit (January 24, 2013)

Rep. Rick Brattin (r): cdesign proponentsists (February 9, 2013)

A press release from the Missouri Republican Party Chair, Ed Martin, has given us the GOP response to HB1340, the ethics reform bill sponsored by state Rep. Kevin McManus (D-036) which was written in collaboration with Secretary of State Jason Kander, also a Democrat. Martin’s take, which will presumably inform his fellow partisan’s talking points, is akin to Jesus’ dictum  that only those who are without sin should cast stones (John 8:7). Sadly, Martin is confused not only about what constitutes political sin, but about the distinction between punitive action – the analogue to the Pharisees effort to stone the woman taken in adultery – and proposals for reform that will benefit every honest actor in government – with the emphasis on honest.

First, a little background: It helps to know that Missouri is a wide-open state when it comes to pay-to-play politics; regulation is so minimal it is non-existent for all practical purposes, and, as a consequence, the home of Missouri political life, Jefferson City, has begun to give off a mighty foul stench. If you’re interested in the particulars, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has detailed some of the abuses in two recent editorials (here and here). Efforts to rectify the situation have been repeatedly stymied, presumably by the gangsters politicians who don’t want to give up the good thing they’ve got going. The Post-Dispatch summed up the process recently, noting that while members of both parties in the legislature are willing  talk a good game when it comes to ethics reform, so far a majority hasn’t been willing to play it out.

The Kander-McManus  bill, however, has real teeth. Do a Google search under the terms “Kander” and “ethics reform” and you’ll see heading after heading calling it a “sweeping reform.” While it may be a descriptive cliche, the label is apt. If adopted, the bill would greatly restrict the most egregious abuses, and represents a good first step toward reform even though it falls short of public-financing. Specifically, it “establishes campaign contribution limits, restricts lawmakers from lobbying or consulting during or immediately following their term, and gives significant new muscle to the Missouri Ethics Commission.”

So what’s Martin on about? Do you think that he might worry that an attack on political corruption could be seen as targeting Republicans? Could that be the reason he’s all “Golly Gee Willikers” about the fact that even Democratic politicians receive campaign donations, sometimes big ones, from supporters:

In 2013, Governor Nixon amassed over $500,000 in contributions over the $5,000 mark. He accepted over $118,045 from trial attorneys and law firms, over $11,000 from unions, and $95,000 from the healthcare industry.

Governor Nixon and Secretary Kander are pushing for stricter limits to current campaign ethics laws, while a noble gesture; they lack the credibility to lead on such reform. Missourians are tired of elected leaders’ talking out of both sides of their mouth,” said Ed Martin, Chairman of the Missouri Republican Party.”

Secretary of State Jason Kander accepted donations 19 times over the course of 2013 above the reforms he supports.

It’s at this point that Martin doesn’t seem to understand just where sin resides when it comes to money in politics. Notice that he doesn’t accuse either the Governor or Secretary Kander of any kind of quid pro quo, and, so far as I know, there’s been no indication of such behavior on the part of either man. It isn’t accepting money that’s bad, it’s selling government in return for that money. That said, it’s clear that there’s a crying need for some pretty strict rules to govern the way the money game is played, and I personally think that rather than invalidating the call for new rules, the fact that the call for reform comes from successful players gives it even more heft.

Which is why Martin’s pièce de résistance, a call for Nixon and Kander to sign a “pledge” promising to forego donations that exceed the limit proposed in Kander’s bill, and to return such large donations that were received in 2013, is so palpably silly. Who in God’s name thinks that unilaterally disarming the reformers would further the goal of reform? At any rate, neither Martin nor anyone else really has to worry about the credibility of the reformers to embrace obvious reforms. If a really “sweeping” ethics bill like that proposed by Kander and McManus, a bill that wields a great big industrial sized broom, is actually adopted, its provisions will apply to Governor Nixon and Jason Kander as well as to every other member of Missouri government. By any measure, when Kander stepped up to lead the ethics reform movement, he was doing just what Martin adjures him to do: trying to put into practice what he preaches.

A petition, started today, at the White House petition site:

We petition the Obama Administration to:

Deport Justin Bieber and revoke his green card.

We the people of the United States feel that we are being wrongly represented in the world of pop culture. We would like to see the dangerous, reckless, destructive, and drug abusing, Justin Bieber deported and his green card revoked. He is not only threatening the safety of our people but he is also a terrible influence on our nations youth. We the people would like to remove Justin Bieber from our society.

Created: Jan 23, 2014

Issues: Criminal Justice and Law Enforcement, Human Rights, Women’s Issues

Signatures needed by February 22, 2014 to reach goal of 100,000 99,443

Total signatures on this petition 557

What will the adults think, eh?

Today’s St. Louis Political Dispatch tells me that state Senator Kurt Schaefer (R-19) has labeled Governor Nixon’s proposed 2015 budget a “political fiction,” based on the Governor’s estimate of a revenue growth rate of 5.2%. One can dispute the premises of the budget in a number of ways, but maybe Senator Schaefer should be careful about calling others out for purveying political fiction. Schaefer, after all, is the same politician who defended his opposition to accepting Obamacare Medicaid expansion funding, which would have helped insure thousands of poor Missourians, by claiming that it would ultimately hurt education, declaring unequivocally that, “I am firmly convinced as the chairman of appropriations that there is no possible way to do Medicaid expansion and not have a serious negative impact on public education.”

Of course the Medicaid expansion would have been fully funded by the federal government for the first three years and the state would have had to pick up funding for only 10% of the cost thereafter. The truth of the matter, as opposed to Schaefer’s contrived political fiction, seems to be that if Missouri doesn’t get in on this, the state will have missed out on a rare bargain that would better the lot of its citizens at a very low cost. All of which leaves one wondering if Schaefer might have a serious problem when it comes to distinguishing political fiction from reality, which would, of course, render the issue of Nixon’s budget – is it fictional or not? – moot.

But it gets even worse. It’s clear, after all, that Schaefer’s wailing about the fantasy damage that Medicaid will do to education in Missouri hasn’t stopped him from refusing to endorse revenue enhancements that are necessary if the struggling educational system is not to be damaged any more than it already has been. He’s actually sponsored another of those massive tax cut bills, SB733, that seem to get GOP juices going in spite of the potential to beggar state coffers, and, in the process, decimate public education in Missouri.

The damage to Missouri education that Schaefer is willing to countenance gets even more specific. According to the Post-Dispatch article, Schaefer’s response to the Governor’s proposed infusion of public funds into the foundation formula, the means by which the state attempts to equitably allocate money to public schools, was that the amount was too high. He can say this although the formula has been underfunded for the past three years and the amount of public funds that Governor Nixon is proposing to put into the system does not come close to closing the gap. The formula was underfunded by $621 million in 2013 and the governor is proposing to supplement it with only $278 million, but Kurt Schaefer thinks that this is more than we can afford. Yet this very same man thinks that Missouri can afford to refuse the return of federal money for Medicaid expansion – money that Missouri tax-payers paid into the federal system – because he, for some trumped up reason, thinks it will hurt education funding.

Since fiction is a realm where the normal logical rules need not apply, I’d say that these interrelated snippits of Senator Schaefer’s world-view might indicate that the gentleman himself inhabits a pretty fictional political universe. The question is, as always, why do Missourians continue to opt for fiction over fact when they elect their representatives? Don’t they see what’s happening as the state hurtles toward a very real, non-fictional bottom?

*Last sentence in 2nd paragraph edited slightly for clarity.  

A bill, introduced today by Representative Chrissy Sommers (r):

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

HOUSE BILL NO. 1556

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES SOMMER (Sponsor), BRATTIN AND ENGLISH (Co-sponsors).

5577H.01I        D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 21, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Missouri firearms freedom act.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

           Section A. Chapter 21, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 21.755, to read as follows:

          21.755. 1. This section shall be called and may be cited as the “Missouri Firearms Freedom Act”.

           2. The general assembly declares that the authority for this section is the following:

           (1) Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Missouri certain powers as they were understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States;

           (2) Amendment IX of the Constitution of the United States guarantees to the people rights not granted in the Constitution and reserves to the people of Missouri certain rights as they were understood at the time that Missouri was admitted to statehood. The guarantee of those rights is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States;

           (3) The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under Amendments IX and X of the Constitution of the United States particularly if not expressly preempted by federal law. Congress has not expressly preempted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition;

           (4) Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time Missouri was admitted to statehood, and the guarantee of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Missouri and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Missouri and the United States; and

           (5) Article I, section 23, Constitution of Missouri clearly secures to Missouri citizens, and prohibits government interference with, the right of individual Missouri citizens to keep and bear arms.

           3. As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall mean:

           (1) “Firearms accessories”, items that are used in conjunction with or mounted upon a firearm but are not essential to the basic function of a firearm including, but not limited to, telescopic or laser sights, magazines, flash or sound suppressors, folding or aftermarket stocks and grips, speedloaders, ammunition carriers, and lights for target illumination;

           (2) “Generic and insignificant parts”, includes but is not limited to springs, screws, nuts, and pins;

           (3) “Manufactured”, creating a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from basic materials for functional usefulness including, but not limited to, forging, casting, machining, or other processes for working materials.

           4. A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured commercially or privately in Missouri and that remains within the borders of Missouri is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce. This section applies to a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured in Missouri from basic materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any significant parts imported into this state. Generic and insignificant parts that have other manufacturing or consumer product applications are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, and their importation into Missouri and incorporation into a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured in Missouri does not subject the firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition to federal regulation. It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition under interstate commerce as if they were actually firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition. The authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce in basic materials does not include the authority to regulate firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition made in Missouri from those materials. Firearms accessories that are imported into Missouri from another state and that are subject to federal regulation as being in interstate commerce do not subject a firearm to federal regulation under interstate commerce because they are attached to or used in conjunction with a firearm in Missouri.

           5. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

           (1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one person;

           (2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one half inch and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

           (3) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

           (4) A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.

           6. A firearm manufactured or sold in Missouri under the provisions of this section shall have the words “Made in Missouri” clearly stamped on a central metallic part, such as the receiver or frame.

Yawn.

Previously:

HB 1163: Hey, the Feds won’t be able to regulate our stoopid if we keep it to ourselves! (December 14, 2013)

This could explain why they keep voting for the same tenther bills every session (December 14, 2013)

HB 1164: What, there’s nothing in there about fluoridation? (December 15, 2013)

HB 1161: You mean like the U.S. Supreme Court? (December 15, 2013)

HB 1439: *JAPRWTNGB (January 16, 2014)

This morning in Warrensburg General (Retired) Richard B. Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the Ike Skelton Lecture on the campus of the University of Central Missouri. He spoke at length, then answered submitted questions from the audience (read from the podium by Brigadier General Thomas Bussiere), and then took questions directly from the audience.

Earlier in the morning General Myers took questions from the media in a short press conference.

At one point a submitted question (and the general’s answer) touched on new media:

General (Retired) Richard B. Myers, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, speaking

at the Ike Skelton lecture on the campus of the University of Central Missouri on January 22, 2014.

[….]

Question:  ….in your time as Chairman the media has become more invasive and rabid in coverage . Now with the advent of social media has become even more so and many stories are being created and developed by non-professionals. What challenges, uh, do you see this creates in the public sector for both leadership and how would you advise future leadership to handle this?

Gen. (Ret.) Richard B. Myers: Well, I think future leadership, and I think the Air Force here does pretty well. The Navy does very well. Uh, the Army here, the Army does not do very well in this area. But this is the whole notion of communications. And, uh, I met your public affairs officer earlier. We were briefed on the little press conference we had.

Uh, I think those that are in charge of our public affairs or communications, uh, need to have a seat at the table, uh, for everything that goes on to include, uh, uh, planning for combat. They’ve got to be right there. And then they’ve got to participate when you’re in the middle of, uh, co, conflict or a, uh, bad event. Uh, they need to be there as well. Early on, not when the reporters are at the gates saying, we want to come in and talk to you. Uh, but well before that, all part of that planning. I think that’s the way, you know, you accommodate to the world we’re in today where the, where the news whips around very fast.

Let me give you an example. So you sit in the Pentagon, you hear the news, and it says, uh, Al Jazeera’s reporting that the U.S. troops, this is hypothetical, U.S. troops, uh, bombed a mosque [inaudible], fired into a mosque. So I call Tommy Franks, say, Tommy, they’re saying that you guys bombed a mosque, what the heck’s that about? He says, I’ll find out and get back to you. And, uh, what Al Jazeera would show you is, uh, you know, U.S. fire going into the mosque. That’s all they would show you. And Tommy comes back and says, yeah, they had a big weapons cache in there and we were taking heavy fire from the mosque and, uh, we had to retaliate, he said. Okay, it sounds fair. Where are the pictures of that fire coming from the mosque? Where are the pictures of the, the weapons cache? Uh, well, they’d get that to you maybe in a, in a month. Well that, that great news story was live for maybe twenty, twenty-four hours. [inaudible] Maybe, maybe couple hour, uh, days. But, it’s no longer around. So I think being more agile in how we address, uh, those kinds of situations, making everybody in the unit know that they can be this strategic corporal that by their actions can draw international attention. I think that’s the way you address that.

You can’t, you can’t address all those that are on the blogosphere with varying credentials. I mean, it’s like swatting flies. And you don’t have time to swat flies. So, let, let the flies buzz around.  Concentrate on those sorts of issues, uh, pick out those in media that you trust. And you can develop trusting relationships with media as well. And, and develop those so when something really goes wrong you have somebody you can turn to that’s, you have a relationship with that’ll at least give you a fair hearing.

[….]

General (Retired) Richard B. Myers.

Credentials. Those worked out so well for Judith Miller.

By @BGinKC

You know how I say it’s hard to be from here sometimes?

Yeah, about that…it ain’t going to get easier any time soon, apparently, because the first thing the jackasses and miscreants in the GOP did was pre-file the same unconstitutional nonsense bills this year that failed last year. Hey, we all know the definition of insanity, right?

About thirty years ago, mental hospitals started shutting down. Well, all those crazy people had to go somewhere, and in Missouri, apparently, we’ve decided to put them in the state legislature. I guess the idea behind that notion was that since the lege is only in session 5 ½ months a year, and their most egregious and blatant nonsense won’t ever see the light of day because the courts will strike it down, what was the harm? They were localized and monitored and it seemed a workable solution for a while.

But lately, I’ve been getting a queasy feeling about the miscreants in the Missouri legislature…like maybe they really are representative of the people who elect them, and if that’s the case, what the hell happened to my state while we were bouncing from billet-to-billet assuring y’all could sleep soundly in your beds at night?

But Brian Nieves – you may remember him from some of his past hits, like brandishing a gun at the legislative aid of an opponent or dreweling upon a constituents assembled arsenal…He manages to stand out in the crowd.

Now look – I realize we live in an era of crazier-than-thou republicanism, but even by today’s in-panoramic-technicolor, tea-party idiots in made-in-China-from-synthetic-fibers period costumes, Missouri’s state lege stands out. There is only one constraint on them – term limits – and under the circumstances, they don’t mean much. It just means that they are really motivated to get in the good graces of the money folks in the short time they have there. That way they can move from their gig as a legislator to a sinecure at a partisan, special-interest law or public relations firm, maybe even become a lobbyist. They sure as hell don’t want to go back to Sikeston or Llamar or Bethany or any of those other god-forsaken hellholes they got elected to get the hell out of.

And I have to hand it to Nieves. He’s really made a name for himself. In the wingnut sweepstakes, he’s really set himself apart. The state was spared the expense of defending an unconstitutional firearms nullification law last year when the House failed to override the Governor’s veto of last year’s model. Well, the gun lobby is back. This year they have already filed the Second Amendment Reinterpretation Act –  what’s that? I got the name wrong? It’s actually The Second Amendment Preservation Act? To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “That word, they keep using that word but I do not think it means what they think it means.” In other words, I think my name for this nonsense is more accurate.

This law is not identical in wording to last year’s run at this particular windmill, but the spirit’s the same. Nieves and company aren’t conservatives and they are an insult to true Republicans.  They are neoconfederate revanchists. This fact needs to be pointed out, frequently and loudly, and they need to be brought to heel.

They call themselves “Constitutional Conservatives.” Fine. Let’s start there. Hell, I’ll even go ’em one better and start with the Holy Second Amendment:

 “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What part of “well regulated” lets them ignore federal laws? Since they all carry their pocket Constitutions with them everywhere they go (so do I – the ACLU gives them away for free; the difference is, I have read mine…all of it…I’ve not just read it, but I understand it, too). Since they claim they’re strict “Constitutional Conservatives” I would ask them to turn to Article VI:

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That first bit just means the founders were men of honor who intended to pay the country’s debts, no matter what the operator’s manual was called. But the rest of it…that means that not only does the federal law reign supreme and therefore it ain’t a gray area that’s open for debate; it means that state laws are subsequent to the US Constitution and the US CODE.

But more than that, Nieves and all legislators are bound by Article VI of the US Constitution not to willfully and blatantly make unconstitutional law, and by filing that bill, he and all the cosponsors who signed on to it are in violation of an article, not a mere amendment, because the oath they take as legislators binds them to uphold the US Constitution.

Besides, we already settled that whole question of nullification back in the 1860s – and it didn’t go particularly well for the nullifiers.  

What this bill is, is a thumb in the eye of the city-folk in KC and St. Louis – and to a certain extent that black fella in the White House – but mostly they like spiting us. You remember us, the folks who pay the god-damned bills for the state.

I don’t begrudge rural roads, water, bridges, schools or healthcare. But god-damn, would it be too much to ask for y’all to elect sane representation who don’t want to destroy those things for you just to spite us – when we’re big enough to take care of ourselves and just shake our heads at your idiocy and go ahead and have nice things without you?

I do have an idea for an amendment to our “kitchen sink” state constitution, though, and I bet the voters would approve it with 85% of the vote. The bill for defending in court such blatantly unconstitutional, grandstanding laws that are destined to be struck down should be collected from the grandstanding legislators who filed and voted for the unconstitutional bill, not the taxpayers of the state.  

President Barack Obama walks to the White House residence with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough,

after a day of meetings in the West Wing of the White House. January 21, 2014. (Photo by Pete Souza)

Just asking.

A bill, introduced today by Representative Paul Wieland (r):

HB 1524

Repeals the provisions that allow the use of the death penalty in Missouri

Sponsor: Wieland, Paul (112)

Co-Sponsor: Berry, T.J. (038) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2014

LR Number: 5250L.01I

Last Action: 01/21/2014 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

Simple. No death penalty, no need for a method of execution. That would certainly cut off the current debate.  

Previously:

Rep. Rick Brattin (r): Ready! Fire! Aim! (January 16, 2014

They took it as a challenge (January 7, 2014))