• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: wingnuts

HB 436: we told you so

05 Friday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brain Nieves, Constitution, General Assembly, guns, HB 436, Jay Nixon, missouri, nullification, Teabaggers, veto, wingnuts

Previously:

HB 436: loonier than Wayne LaPierre at a press conference (February 5, 2013)

Ladies and gentlemen, your right wingnut controlled General Assembly (May 9, 2013)

HB 436: nullification – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 10, 2013)

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) – Missouri Boys State – June 17, 2013 – one word (June 17, 2013)

Governor Jay Nixon (D) vetoed the right wingnut gun nullification bill today. In his veto message [pdf] Teacher Jay Nixon had to spend time schooling the republican controlled General Assembly since they had obviously slept through all of their class sessions when the U.S. Constitution was covered:

July 5, 2013

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Herewith I return to you Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 entitled:

AN ACT

To repeal sections 21.750, 571.030, 571.101, 571.107, 571.117, and 590.010, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof fourteen new sections relating to firearms, with a penalty provision.

I disapprove of Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436. My reasons for disapproval are as follows:

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution as well as an individual’s free exercise of speech protected by both the federal and state constitutions.

I. Violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 violates the Constitution of the United States, Article VI, Clause 2, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. A conflicts-of-law provision, the Supremacy Clause was designed to provide a mechanism to enforce federal acts and to resolve discord between state and federal laws that touch upon the same subject, giving precedence to the laws of the nation over those of the respective states.

At the time of the Constitutional Convention, the framers proposed a number of ideas to resolve conflict between state and federal law, including the Virginia Plan where Congress would have been given the direct power to “negative” or veto state laws. Ultimately, however, the Supremacy Clause was adopted – an idea derived from Alexander Hamilton’s federalist Paper No. 33 and James Madison’s Federalist paper No. 44, but proposed for inclusion in the Constitution by Anti-Federalist Luther Martin. It states:

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, any Thing in the Constitution of Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause becomes relevant when state law conflicts with federal statute, or when it is impossible to comply with both state and federal law, or, as in the particular case of Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436, when a state law “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941), see also Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000). By seeking to declare certain federal acts null and void, Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 seeks to turn the hierarchy of our national framework of laws on its head in clear violation of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

In addition, Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 would deprive a federal agent of his or her authority to enforce certain federal acts within the state; indeed it would make such conduct a crime. The lineage of cases prohibiting this type of legislation dates back to 1819, when Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in McCullough v. Maryland, solidified the principle that the Supremacy Clause prevents states from regulating, interfering with, or controlling federal instrumentalities. 17 U.S. 316 (4 wheat.). Decades later, in Tennessee v. Davis, the Court reiterated this position: “No state government can exclude [a federal agency] from the exercise of any authority conferred upon it by the Constitution….” (100 U.S. 257 (1879)). And, in 1890, the Court ruled that a state does not have criminal jurisdiction over a federal agent who commits an act in the performance of his official functions. In re Neagle 135 U.S. 1.

Notwithstanding McCullough and its progeny, states have, from time to time, attempted to resurrect the pre-Civil war concept of nullification, an argument that individual states, either through legislation or state court ruling, can decide for themselves if a federal law is constitutional, all in an effort to distance a state from the reach of Congress. Counted among such efforts is now Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436, which seeks to not only prevent federal agents from performing their sworn duties within Missouri, but to exempt Missouri from a number of named and unnamed federal acts.

Of course, an individual state is not empowered to determine which federal laws it will comply with, nor is it empowered to declare a federal act to be unconstitutional. Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the authority to declare a federal act unconstitutional is within the sole province of the federal courts. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821); see also Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). Notably, the federal acts targeted in the bill for nullification have not been deemed unconstitutional by a federal court.

The doctrine of supremacy is logically sound as it is legally well-established. Consider how our nation’s efforts during the Second World war might have been frustrated if, following the passage of the Burke-Wadsworth Act, individual states could have exempted their citizens from selective service, or how one state’s economic prosperity might have been diminished if one or more contiguous states opted out of the Federal Highway Act of 1956, thereby making it more difficult to bring goods and services to market.

Still, nullification advocates often reference the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, in which Thomas Jefferson and James Madison asserted a state’s right to nullify the Alien and Sedition Acts (though the respective states chose not to assert that right). Jefferson and Madison argued that the states must have the final word because the Constitution had not expressly established an ultimate authority on constitutional matters. However, a few years later in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court unanimously held that: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

Nontheless, from the 1820s throughout the 2000s, nullification attempts periodically surfaced, but consistently failed. Shortly after McCullough, the Ohio legislature passed a resolution rejecting Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling and then legislatively imposed a tax on the federal bank. In response, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Osborne v. Bank of the United States, held that Ohio’s tax was “repugnant to a law of the United States…and therefore void.” 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824).

More than a century later in Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court, relying on the Supremacy Clause, rejected attempts by the State of Arkansas to ignore its direction to desegregate schools in Brown v. Board of Education, stating that nullification was not “a constitutional doctrine…[but] illegal defiance of constitutional authority.” 358 U.S. 1 (1958). At the time of the Brown decision, the Missouri Constitution of 1945 contained a provision that required separate schools based on race (Art IX, Sec. 1). However, Missouri properly recognized the legal authority of the United States Supreme Court and, soon after Brown, Attorney General John M. Dalton declared that the State Constitution and any statutes requiring segregation were “superseded by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and are, therefore, unenforceable….” Daugherty, B.J, & Bolton, C.C. With all deliberate speed: Implementing Brown v. Board of Education, 179. University of Arkansas Press, 2008. Also, the state board of education adopted a resolution stating its intent to implement Brown, and Governor Phil M. Donnely joined by stating that Missouri would follow Brown’s requirements.

Even recently, efforts to nullify federal laws have continued without success. The Supreme Court of Montana, swayed by the unique character of its state, mimicked Ohio’s defiance of McCullough in upholding a state law that limited contributions by corporations, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to the contrary in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 558 U.S. 310 (2010). The  U.S. Supreme Court, confronted with the question of whether Citizens United applied to state law, unequivovally affirmed the long-standing supremacy doctrine by stating: “There can be no serious doubt that it does.” American trade partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, 132 S.Ct. 2490 (2012).

II. Violates the Free Exercise of Speech protected by the State and Federal Constitutions

Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 would also infringe upon an individual’s freedom of speech protected by the federal and state Constitutions by making it a crime to publish the name or other information or someone who owns a firearm.

There is no shortage of unacceptable scenarios that could result from this provision. As one example, newspapers around the state annually publish photos of proud young Missourians who harvest their first turkey or deer. Under this bill, doing so would be a crime. Also, and somewhat ironically, a reporter who prints a photo of a local rally being held in support of gun rights could face up to a year in jail or a thousand dollar fine, or both.

In addition, a reporter would be precluded from writing or tweeting the name of a burglary victim who had his or her firearm stolen, or even from doing a story on a candidate in an upcoming General Assembly election if that candidate owns a firearm. Presumably, a reporter could not even attach her name to any story if she herself is a gun owner. Moreover, there is nothing in the bill’s broad prohibitive language that would prevent criminal charges if a firearm owner is mentioned in court records or police reports, or even by a private citizen on a social networking site. Such a list of examples is conceivably endless. That said, and putting aside the perplexing paradox of seeking to protect one constitutional right by significantly diminishing another, curtailing speech in such a manner clearly violates the free exercise of speech protected by the state and federal constitutions.

Conclusion

In light of Article VI, Clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the guarantee of an individual’s freedom of speech contained in both the federal and state Constitutions, as well as the vast and enduring case law affirming the supremacy doctrine and invalidating the concept of nullification, it can safely be determined that Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 is, in multiple respects, constitutionally impermissible.

In accordance with the above stated reasons for disapproval, I am returning Senate Committee Substitute for House Committee Substitute for House Bill No. 436 without my approval.

Respectfully submitted,

s/

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon

Governor

Shorter Jay Nixon (D): maroons.

Rule of law in a nutshell

13 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Digby, wingnuts

We are not worthy.

The incomparable Digby:

Prove It

…it’s worth noting more explicitly, that the government presumably always “knows” that someone is guilty before they indict him or her for a crime. At least it should. The point of the trial is to make them prove it. They have to put their evidence on the table and convince 12 people that it’s enough to take away someone’s freedom or, in this case, execute them. And because trials are public, this demonstration of proof creates trust in the justice system and the rule of law among the population at large…

[emphasis in original]

You’d think a wingnut might comprehend that, except they can’t fit the whole paragraph on their palm.

Local Teaparty'ers pray for NY Politician, seriously

30 Friday Oct 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Hoffman, teaparty, wingnuts

Look, I’m not even going to really write a post, but I thought folks might find this as ridiculous/hilarious as I did.

In the link below, local teaparty head nutbag, Bill Hennessy, asks teaparty’ers to pray for the third party, hard right, candidate in the NY-23 special election.  

Does anyone not think these jerks are theocrats?  

http://stlouisteaparty.com/200…

…ergo propter wingnut

28 Wednesday Oct 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

2008, Birthers, Kansas City, Michelle Obama, missouri, transcript, wingnuts

We’ve been getting quite a bit of traffic from right wingnuttia over a reference at one of their sites (no, we’re not going to give them the linky goodness and ensuing traffic).

During the campaign, on July 10, 2008, Michelle Obama came to Kansas City for a town hall on the campus of the University of Missouri – Kansas City. We covered the event:

Michelle Obama in Kansas City – photos

(by the way, one of our photos from the event made its way to the Obama campaign web site)

Michelle Obama in Kansas City – remarks

Right wingnuttia is quite obsessed by this portion of the transcript, claiming that it’s proof that President Obama is illegitimate and this is further proof to be added to the convoluted birther pantheon of conspiracies:

…He understands them because he was raised by strong women. He is the product of two great women in his life. His mother and his grandmother. [applause] Barack saw his mother, who was very young and very single when she had him, and he saw her work hard to complete her education and try to raise he and his sister…

I kid you not. These are the kinds of people who memorize and obsess over every detail of The Brady Bunch as if the complete episodes were Shakespeare’s plays. They just haven’t figured out that there is a difference.

The Faux News Channel will pick this up in, three, two, one… And that’s the problem with political discourse in this country.

A simple agenda, with some simple answers

24 Thursday Sep 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

missouri, wingnuts

Our friends at Fired Up reminded us that there’s a wingnut fest in St. Louis this weekend. We thought we’d take a look at the agenda and save everyone the time and the price of admission:

How to stop abortions: a new approach

Uh, elect republican majorities in the House and Senate and a republican President then stand around while they loot the treasury and enrich their cronies as they ignore the people they mobilized with their wedge politics strategery. Oh, wait, you said “a new approach.”

How to counter the homosexual extremist movement

Secede from the Union?

How to deal with global warming, cap and trade

Problem. Solution. No problem.

How to use New Media technology

Gingerly, with a top down strict hierarchical structure. We guarantee that this will encourage originality and innovation.

How to stop the entry of illegal aliens and drugs

That’s a tough one. Let’s ask shadow president John McCain when he’s on Meet the Press.

How to stop government attacks on parents’ rights

That’s easy. Don’t have kids.

How to deal with supremacist judges

Don’t live in Alabama so you don’t have to vote for them?

How Conservatives Can Use Media to Advance Our Cause

Buy your own cable new network. Oh, wait…

How to stop socialism in health care

Get rid of our military, the Veterans Administration, and Medicare.

How to defeat attacks on sovereignty by UN treaties

Buy your own fleet of black helicopters and fly them around in random places to confuse everybody.

How to activate your church

Enter the ten digit code that’s printed on the inside of the CD cover.

How to use the Internet effectively

1. Possess critical thinking skills. 2. Chant “facts are our friends, facts are our friends, facts are out friends.” 3. Lather. 4. Rinse. 5. Repeat.

How to deal with vote fraud, the Census, and ACORN

Defund the military industrial complex?

How to defend America vs. missile attack

Duck and cover.

How to lobby legislators

Roy Blunt (r – lobbyists) knows how that works!

How to bring youth into the conservative movement

Eviscerate funding for public education.

How to understand Islam

If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em?

How to defend traditional marriage and DOMA

Don’t elect any republicans who’ve been divorced or hang out in airport bathroom stalls?

How the media can help us take back America

Tell Drudge and the rest of them will repeat it.

How to lobby federal legislation & policy

Ask Roy Blunt (r – lobbyists), he knows!

How to defeat Con Con, National Popular Vote, ERA

The same way we did with fluoridation?

How to recognize living under Nazis & Communists

Is it their brown shirts or the forced attendance for presidential addresses in our schools?

How to stop feminist and gay attacks on the military

Give a corporation [a] cost plus two hundred billion dollar contract to buy them all off?

How conservatives can win in 2010

Keep on doing what you’re doing now. Please.

What wingnuts and teabaggers think passes for reasonable political discourse in America

17 Thursday Sep 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Obama, Teabaggers, wingnuts

On a pickup truck in Warrensburg, Missouri.

The funniest political news of the year.

18 Tuesday Aug 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Ike Skelton, missouri, republicans, some other guy, Vicki Hartzler, wingnuts

Chad Livengood of the Springfield News-Leader “re-tweeted” my comment about Vicky Hartzler (r – to the right of Attila the Hun) challenging Representative Ike Skelton (D) in the Fourth Congressional District:

ChadLivengood RT @MBersin … “AP: Two Republicans may challenge Ike Skelton in #MO4 http://linkbee.com/COAM3″ The funniest political news of the year. about 3 hours ago from web

[emphasis added]

The list of legislation Vicki Hartzler sponsored in 2000 as a representative in the Missouri General Assembly:  

2000 Legislation Sponsored by Representative Vicky Hartzler

SPONSOR

HB1223

Changes farm machinery inventory repurchase law.

HB1223 — (LR# 2393L.01I)

AGRI-BUSINESS

Executive Session Held (H)

HB1322

Changes law regarding the careless operation of motor vehicles.

HB1322 — (LR# 3195L.02I)

TRANSPORTATION

Executive Session Held (H)

HB1556

Requires physicians to offer any pregnant woman seeking an abortion with the opportunity to view her sonogram.

HB1556 — (LR# 3351L.02I)

Referred: Critical Issues (H)

HB1921

Creates an income tax credit for certain farmers and farming corporations in an amount equal to ten percent of the cost of items allowed as an expense election pursuant to section 179 of the IRC.

HB1921 — (LR# 3241L.01I)

Referred: Ways and Means (H)

HB1980

Provides scholarships to certain former foster children who are adopted or have a legal guardian appointed after age thirteen.

HB1980 — (LR# 2803L.01I)

EDUCATION – HIGHER

Public Hearing Held (H)

HB1981

Expedites termination of parental rights and adoption cases.

HB1981 — (LR# 3112L.01I)

CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Public Hearing Held (H)

HB1982

Enacts the “Parenting Alternatives Law” and provides for the transfer of temporary custody to the prospective adoptive parents within forty-eight hours of the birth of the child.

HB1982 — (LR# 3350L.02I)

Referred: Critical Issues (H)

COSPONSOR

HB1498

Creates a sales tax exemption for sales of merchandise used for the disposition of and in connection with the disposition of dead human bodies.

HB1498 — (LR# 3598L.01I)

WAYS AND MEANS

Public Hearing Held (H)

HB1667

Allows courts to issue restraining orders against certain persons less than eighteen years of age.

HB1667 — (LR# 3099L.01I)

Referred: Civil and Administrative Law (H)

HB1819

Corrects a technical title defect for a marriage statute declared unconstitutional.

HB1819 — (LR# 3448L.01I)

CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES

Public Hearing Held (H)

HB2058

Enacts the Reading Instruction Act.

HB2058 — (LR# 4588L.01I)

Referred: Education-Elementary and Secondary (H)

This will be fun to watch. And there’s gonna be a republican primary, too! We’ll get to witness them trying to out wingnut each other. Stock up on popcorn…

The Opposition

22 Wednesday Jul 2009

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Blacksphere, health care reform, missouri, Russ Carnahan, wingnuts

I’m not impressed.

Look at this post that is currently making the rounds on conservative blogs and on Twitter, creatively titled “Russ Carnahan Dismisses Black Man at Townhall.” The video in the post shows Russ Carnahan speaking at the same health care town hall that hotflash attended earlier this week. A questioner, presumably the author of the blog Blacksphere, shouts a question in the middle of Carnahan’s presentation, at which point Carnahan proceeds to talk through the question without answering it.

Is there evidence, presented in the video or otherwise, that Russ Carnahan dismissed anyone because of the color of their skin? Or that he even dismissed someone because they did anything other than speak out of turn? Questioners were given time to speak at microphones at the town hall, and as hotflash noted, they weren’t all critics from the right – single payer advocates were able to make their voices heard forcefully and politely.

Mind you, this guy is prone to make wild parallels between the conservative Democrats of the segregated South (many of whom became Republicans after the national Democratic Party led the way on civil rights) and the Democrats of today. In the very next post, tastefully titled MO Senator McCaskill Denies Access to Certain Blacks Kevin compares an incident at McCaskill’s office in St. Louis with police sending attack dogs against defenseless protesters.

The incident hearkened me back to the ’60’s when racist Democrats controlled the police. In those days they would have turned loose the German Shepards attacking Republicans supporting the civil rights of black Americans. Likely a disappointment for McCaskill’s office that they didn’t.

What did McCaskill’s staff do to merit such a comparison? They asked police to move the rightwing protesters away the building after the protesters began beating on the doors and windows of the office building, including those of adjoining businesses unrelated to McCaskill’s Senate staff. The protesters were allowed to remain within view of McCaskill’s office. And of course, no attack dogs, batons, tear gas, fire hoses, gunfire, or other physical means were used to relocate the protesters.

If the best conservatives can do is to use Alan Keyes and Neal Boortz as standards for sober-minded discussion, they best be prepared for decades in the wilderness.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007

Categories

  • campaign finance
  • Claire McCaskill
  • Democratic Party News
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Josh Hawley
  • media criticism
  • meta
  • Missouri General Assembly
  • Missouri Governor
  • Missouri House
  • Missouri Senate
  • Resist
  • Roy Blunt
  • social media
  • Standing Rock
  • Town Hall
  • Uncategorized
  • US Senate

Meta

  • Log in

Blogroll

  • Balloon Juice
  • Crooks and Liars
  • Digby
  • I Spy With My Little Eye
  • Lawyers, Guns, and Money
  • No More Mister Nice Blog
  • The Great Orange Satan
  • Washington Monthly
  • Yael Abouhalkah

Donate to Show Me Progress via PayPal

Your modest support helps keep the lights on. Click on the button:

Blog Stats

  • 418,112 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.