The Summer of 2009. I can picture the conversations taking place in republican back rooms across the state of Missouri: “Hey, I’ve got a great idea, let’s do everything we can to appropriate teabagger ranting and turn it into bills for the next session of the General Assembly.”
That would explain a lot.
And so would this:
“…The Tea Party movement is mostly made up of people who consider themselves Republicans,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “They are less educated but more interested in politics than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack and are not in a traditional sense swing voters…”
Question. Where were all these teabaggers from January 2001 to January 2009?
The House third read and passed HJR 88 today:
HJR 88 Proposes a constitutional amendment asserting the state’s sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
Sponsor: Nieves, Brian D. (98) Proposed Effective Date: Referendum
CoSponsor: Jones, Timothy W. (89) ……….etal. LR Number: 4464L.01P
Last Action: 04/08/2010 – Third Read and Passed (H)
HJR88
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
House Calendar HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR THIRD READING
You’ve got to especially love the understanding of Missouri’s Constitution this little portion of teabagger rhetoric belies:
…(g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state. As Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38, 99: “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”….
Did any of the sponsors or those who voted for it bother to read this section of the Missouri Constitution?:
Missouri Constitution
Article IX
EDUCATION
Section 8Prohibition of public aid for religious purposes and institutions.
Section 8. Neither the general assembly, nor any county, city, town, township, school district or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, anything in aid of any religious creed, church or sectarian purpose, or to help to support or sustain any private or public school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other institution of learning controlled by any religious creed, church or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any county, city, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.
Oopsie. Do you think the intent of our merry band of tenthers and teabagger enablers is a backdoor attempt to remove the establishment clause from the Missouri Constitution?
The joint resolution as passed by the House:
SECOND REGULAR SESSION
[PERFECTED]
95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES NIEVES (Sponsor), JONES (89), EMERY, SCHARNHORST, SELF, LOEHNER, RUESTMAN, GATSCHENBERGER, SCHAD, SCHAAF, FLOOK, DUSENBERG, SATER, PRATT, TRACY, POLLOCK, KRAUS, STEVENSON, ERVIN, LEARA, GRISAMORE, ALLEN, BURLISON, NOLTE, DAVIS, WELLS, LAIR, SCHIEFFER, FISHER (125), ZERR, SANDER, SMITH (14), PARKINSON, BIVINS, KOENIG, SCHOELLER, DETHROW, FUNDERBURK, SCHLOTTACH, FLANIGAN, MUNZLINGER, McGHEE, KINGERY, VIEBROCK, WETER, FAITH, NANCE, DUGGER, THOMSON, WILSON (130), DENISON, SMITH (150) AND GUERNSEY (Co-sponsors).
4464L.01P D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
JOINT RESOLUTION
Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri, an amendment to article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section relating to state sovereignty.
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring therein:
That at the next general election to be held in the state of Missouri, on Tuesday next following the first Monday in November, 2010, or at a special election to be called by the governor for that purpose, there is hereby submitted to the qualified voters of this state, for adoption or rejection, the following amendment to article I of the Constitution of the state of Missouri:
Section A. Article I, Constitution of Missouri, is amended by adding one new section, to be known as section 35, to read as follows:
Section 35. 1. The state of Missouri hereby enforces its constitutional sovereignty and the sovereignty of its citizens under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America over all powers not enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America, nor prohibited by it to the states.
2. The state of Missouri shall:
(1) Uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America by hereby prohibiting the Missouri legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government from recognizing, enforcing, or acting in furtherance of any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;
(2) Not recognize, enforce, or act in furtherance of the following:
(a) Federal actions restricting the right of private citizens to bear arms;
(b) Federal actions legalizing or funding abortions, or the destruction of any embryo containing human DNA from the zygote stage onward through all stages of development;
(c) Any federal action requiring the sale or trade of carbon credits or imposing a tax, fee, fine, or penalty on the release of carbon emissions;
(d) Federal actions involving a public option for health care, mandating end of life counseling, rationing health care, dictating or limiting the type of treatment a doctor may provide to his or her patient, authorizing or mandating the collection of a patient’s medical record into a database, covering illegal aliens under health insurance or prohibiting enforcement of laws regarding coverage for illegal aliens, mandating the benefits health insurance must cover, requiring insurance providers to cover abortion services, restricting the ability of patients to purchase health insurance in another state, or assessing fees, fines, or penalties on employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees;
(e) Any federal action mandating the recognition of same sex marriage, civil unions, or any relationship other than the marriage of one man and one woman;
(f) Any federal action increasing the punishment for a crime based on the thoughts of the perpetrator or the designation of the crime as a “hate crime”;
(g) Any federal action regarding the establishment clause based upon a “wall of separation” between church and state. As Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist wrote in Wallace v. Jafree, 472 U.S. 38, 99: “It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of Constitutional history. . . . The establishment clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson’s misleading metaphor for nearly forty years. . . . There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the framers intended to build a wall of separation [between church and state]. . . . The recent court decisions are in no way based on either the language or intent of the framers.”;
(h) Any federal action restricting the right of parents or guardians to home school, enroll their children in a private or parochial school, or placing restrictions on curriculum;
(3) Interpret the Constitution of the United States of America based on its language and the intent of the signers of the Constitution at the time of its passage. The several amendments shall be interpreted by their language and the intent of the congressional sponsor and co-sponsors of the amendment. Any interpretation of the Constitution based on an emerging awareness, penumbras or shadows of the Constitution, a theory of the Constitution being a “living, breathing document”, or any interpretation that expands federal authority beyond the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government, without an amendment to the Constitution, shall be deemed to exceed the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government;
(4) Missouri citizens shall have standing to bring a cause of action to enforce the provisions of this section. Enforcement of this section shall apply to federal actions taking effect after approval of this section by Missouri voters, federal actions enumerated herein, and any federal action, regardless of its effective date, the general assembly or Missouri supreme court shall hereafter determine, in accordance with subparagraph (3) of this subsection, to exceed the powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States of America;
(5) As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(a) “Federal action”, any federal law, executive order, judicial ruling, administrative ruling, collection of revenue, dispersal of revenue, or other action by the legislative, executive, or judicial branches of the federal government that exceeds the limited powers enumerated and delegated to the federal government by the Constitution;
(b) “Public option”, any health insurance plan passed after January 1, 2009, operated by the federal government or its agent that competes directly or indirectly with private health insurance providers;
(c) “Constitution”, the Constitution of the United States of America;
(6) The provisions of this section are self-executing. All of the provisions of this section are severable. If any of the provisions of this section is found by a court of competent jurisdiction, in compliance with subparagraph (3) of this subsection, to be unconstitutional or unconstitutionally enacted, the remaining provisions of this section shall be and remain valid. Any ruling by a court of competent jurisdiction in violation of subparagraph (3) of this subsection shall be invalid and not recognized, enforced, or otherwise furthered in the state of Missouri.
Let’s see. Guns! Check. Abortion and stem cells! Check. Cap and trade! Check. Health care reform! Check. Gay marriage or civil unions! Check. Hate crimes? Check. Religion! Check. Home schooling and parochial schools! Check.
What? Nothing about supporting public education? Oh, right.
Only 13 percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group that has more women than men; is mainly white and Republican and voted for John McCain, and strongly supports Sarah Palin…
And apparently the republican majority in the Missouri House would be in that 13%. Yesterday’s perfection vote in the House [pdf]:
On motion of Representative Nieves, HJR 88 was ordered perfected and printed by the following vote:
AYES: 090
Allen Ayres Bivins Brandom Brown 30 Brown 149 Bruns Burlison Cooper Cox Cunningham Davis Day Deeken Denison Dethrow Dieckhaus Diehl Dixon Dugger Dusenberg Emery Ervin Faith Fisher 125 Flanigan Flook Franz Funderburk Gatschenberger Grisamore Guernsey Guest Harris Hobbs Hoskins 121 Icet Jones 89 Jones 117 Keeney Kingery Koenig Kraus Lair Largent Leara Lipke Loehner McGhee McNary Molendorp Munzlinger Nance Nieves Nolte Parkinson Parson Pollock Pratt Riddle Ruestman Ruzicka Sander Sater Schaaf Schad Scharnhorst Schlottach Schoeller Self Shively Silvey Smith 14 Smith 150 Stevenson Stream Sutherland Swinger Thomson Tilley Tracy Viebrock Wallace Wasson Wells Weter Wilson 119 Wilson 130 Wright Zerr
NOES 069:
Atkins Aull Biermann Bringer Brown 50 Burnett Calloway Carter Casey Chappelle-Nadal Colona Conway Corcoran Curls Dougherty Englund Fallert Fischer 107 Frame Grill Hodges Holsman Hoskins 80 Hughes Hummel Jones 63 Kander Kelly Kirkton Komo Kratky Kuessner Lampe LeVota Liese Low McClanahan McDonald McNeil Meadows Meiners Morris Nasheed Newman Norr Oxford Pace Quinn Roorda Rucker Salva Scavuzzo Schieffer Schoemehl Schupp Skaggs Spreng Still Storch Talboy Todd Walsh Walton Gray Webb Webber Whitehead Witte Yaeger Zimmerman
I guess this means that the House republicans have to say, “We’re all teabaggers now.”