State Representative Cynthia Davis (r-let them eat McDonald’s) is still in office through early January until the new Missouri General Assembly is sworn in. Our good friends at Fired Up! caught her latest newsletter, pointing out her inimitable views on cosmology.

We note her (lack of) constitutional scholarship in the same newsletter:

…Missouri is Also Special

Our Missouri constitution has some parts that are better than our US Constitution.  For example, Missouri’s Bill of Rights states:

  1. “Missouri is a free and independent state…all proposed amendments…affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to the conventions of the people.” (Section 4).

  2. “All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience;” (Section 5).

  3. “No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what means communication; that every person shall be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuses of that liberty;”  (Section 8)

  4. “…The court shall excuse any woman who requests exemption there-from before being sworn as a juror.”  Section 22 (b)

  5. “Private property shall not be taken for private use …except for private ways of necessity, and except for drains and ditches across the lands of others for agricultural and sanitary purposes…” (Section 28)

  6. “To be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.  (Section 33)….

“…Our Missouri constitution has some parts that are better than our US Constitution…”

Uh, there’s a small matter of the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution:

Article VI

….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 or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding….

[emphasis added]

“…and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding…”

Cynthia Davis is an idiot.

The Bill of Rights?

While we’re at it, the Missouri Constitution, has an establishment clause in, count ’em, two places:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

Article IX

EDUCATION

Section 8

Prohibition 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.

The concept is so important that it’s in two places in the Missouri Constitution. Cynthia Davis (r) ignores that? How convenient.

 

Several commentators have recently remarked on the irony of Tea Partiers’ ostentatious flaunting of the Constitution at the same time that when they get down to specifics they and their congressional surrogates are more likely to want to trash the constitution than to preserve it. In order to construct a constitution more to their liking, various fringewing GOPers have proposed more than 42 constitutional amendments, not to mention extensive tinkering with existing amendments. They have proposed repealing the 17th Amendment (they prefer to have Senators appointed by state legislatures rather than stand for election); the 16th Amendment (which provides for direct taxation of income); “restoring” the 13th Amendment (the changes to the original Amendment were made to ban slavery); and changing parts of the 14th Amendment that permit definitions of citizenship that are worrisome for the anti-immigrant GOP.

In regard to the 14th Amendment specifically, Missourians worried about the hordes “swarming across our border,” in the words of Nevada Tea Partier Sharon Angle, in order to have “anchor babies,” will be happy to know that, according to analyses performed by the folks at ThinkProgress, almost all of our Missouri GOP House delegation have supported changes which would eliminate a guarantee of citizenship for individuals born in the U.S.  

Roy Blunt (R-07), Sam Graves (R-05), Todd Akin (R-02), Jo-Ann Emerson (R-08) are among the 130 Reublicans who support changes in the 14th Amendment.  If the GOP retakes the House they may actually get their way:  

Ending birthright citizenship is no idle belief in the GOP caucus. Rather, Republicans have been pushing this idea for nearly two decades, introducing 28 separate bills to eliminate birthright citizenship since 1995.

The people to whom our Missouri GOPers are pandering are the same people who welcomed the Obama presidency by stockpiling weapons in order to defend their hallowed 2nd amendment rights, though that poorly worded Amendment – or its current interpretation – may be the only part of the Constitution that they do respect. (The 10th Amendment and a few other sections might seem to enjoy the same status, but only if the Tea Party is allowed to interpret them according to their druthers, the possibility of which is still open to question.)

The other interesting fact about this near-universal support to prevent “anchor babies” from being conceived, is that these Missourians are willing to tinker with the constitution to fix a problem that doesn’t really exist. According to an article on RealClearPolitics:

… Pregnant Mexican women from border towns do commonly cross just to have a baby in the U.S. But their extended families have often straddled the border for a century or more. The women tend to be middle class, pre-pay the hospitals in cash and go home, though their children can someday return.  

A handful of tourists do the same, but the total of all these is minuscule. Significant are the 4 million children in 2008 with one or more unauthorized immigrant parents spread throughout the country, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Repeated studies, however, show that their parents came for jobs or to join family. The children were normal byproducts of life, and not an immigration strategy. The parents are not eligible for welfare or for citizenship until after the child turns 21.

Yesterday, in an NPR interview, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor promoted an interactive Website, iCivics. Although it is intended as a tool to educate middle school students about government, it’s still worth a moment of time from those of us who left middle school many years ago.  

iCivics was developed, O’Connor says, because “few states make civics and government a requirement anymore.”  I can think of another big reason that tools like iCivics are sorely needed: The Tea Party. Consider the following:

— The Salem Missouri Tea Party Webpage identifies Tea partiers as, among other things, citizens who:

… believe in smaller government, & responsible government. We support the American Dream, & believe in upholding the Ideals as set forth in the Constitution of the United States of America.

— At one of the first local St. Louis appearances of the Tea Party, an AFP-brokered meeting between a representative of Senator Claire McCaskill and several hundred Tea Partiers, a young man who grandiloquently attacked health care on constitutional grounds was the biggest hit of the evening with the rambunctious crowd.  

Emphasis on the constitution is a common theme with Tea Partiers, although one suspects that few of those cheering when the constitution is rhetorically flourished, know much more about the document than, as we recently learned, many avowed Christians know about the teachings of their own churches. Stanford Law School’s Larry Krammer contends that the Tea Party understanding of the Constitution often tends toward “some loose, ill-informed version of originalism.”

One could argue that the Tea Partiers’ constitution also carries the burden of their anxiety and resentment in the face of social change. An NPR report on the subject observed that:

Tea Party members are often vague about exactly how their constitutional rights are being denied. But they all believe the federal government has expanded far beyond what the Constitution intended.

The same report later asserts that though Tea Party “constitutional arguments may sound abstract, they are grounded in something visceral,” and quotes a Columbia Law Professor whose polls of Tea Party supporters leads him to conclude more specifically that:

A lot of this taps into people’s objections to Obama personally – you know, we’ve had all kinds of constitutional arguments that have been raised against Obama,” he says, “whether you’re pointing to the birther movement, for example, or constitutional objections to individual policies.

The upshot of all this commotion is simply that the Constitution is our newest bone of contention. A retrograde political element is trying to appropriate the document to assuage their social angst, and if progressives want to hold the line against their encroachments, they need tools like those the iCivics Project provides. If we don’t want people jerking their knees in time to canned Tea Party (or any other party) noise about the constitution or any other government topic, we are responsible to see that they get sufficient information – and preferably from sources a little more unbiased than the Glenn Becks of fringedom who are rushing in to fill the vacuum we have allowed to develop.

…and satire is dead.

May 13

Incident spurs call for school use review

A city School Committee member says she’s ‘appalled’ at how GOP guests treated a classroom.

….The Republican State Convention was held at the Portland Exposition Building, which is on Park Avenue, near the middle school. Party members from Knox County caucused in a classroom used by eighth-grade social studies teacher Paul Clifford…

…Later, Clifford learned that his classroom had been searched. Republicans who had attended the convention called Principal Mike McCarthy to complain about “anti-American” things they saw there, including a closed box containing copies of the U.S. Constitution that were published by the American Civil Liberties Union….

The Constitution is anti-American? Go figure. That would explain a lot.

Via Balloon Juice.

Previously: Department of Redundancy Department: Representative Mike McGhee (r)

Pirate Fish image courtesy of the CotFSM.

On April 26th, by a vote of 125 to 30, the Missouri House third read and passed HJR 62, a constitutional amendment to be submitted to the voters which will add complications to the definition of religious freedom as stated in the Missouri Constitution.

HJR 62 Proposes a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a citizen’s right to pray and worship on public property and reaffirming a citizen’s right to choose any or no religion

Sponsor: McGhee, Mike (122) Proposed Effective Date: Referendum

CoSponsor: LR Number: 4153L.01P

Last Action: Senate Committee: GENERAL LAWS

05/04/2010 – Executive Session Held (S)

VOTED DO PASS

HJR62

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

The current statement on religious freedom in the Missouri Constitution:

Missouri Constitution

Article I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Section 5

Religious freedom–liberty of conscience and belief–limitations.

Section 5. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his person or estate; but this section shall not be construed to excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

What the Missouri House did on April 26th:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION

[PERFECTED]

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 62

95TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES McGHEE (Sponsor), DAVIS, BURLISON, JONES (89), ERVIN, KRAUS, THOMSON, DIECKHAUS, LAIR, DEEKEN, SCHIEFFER, RUZICKA, FUNDERBURK, WELLS, SMITH (150), RUESTMAN, GATSCHENBERGER, COX, WASSON, DETHROW, WILSON (130), WALLACE, WILSON (119) AND KOENIG (Co-sponsors).

4153L.01P                                                                                                                                                 D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk

JOINT RESOLUTION

Submitting to the qualified voters of Missouri an amendment repealing section 5 of article I of the Constitution of Missouri, and adopting one new section in lieu thereof relating to the right to pray.

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. Section 5, article I, Constitution of Missouri, is repealed and one new section adopted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 5, to read as follows:

           Section 5. That all men and women have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no person shall, on account of his or her religious persuasion or belief, be rendered ineligible to any public office or trust or profit in this state, be disqualified from testifying or serving as a juror, or be molested in his or her person or estate; that to secure a citizen’s right to acknowledge Almighty God according to the dictates of his or her own conscience, neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions shall establish any official religion, nor shall a citizen’s right to pray or express his or her religious beliefs be infringed; that the state shall not coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure that any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting so long as such prayer does not result in disturbance of the peace or disruption of a public meeting or assembly; that citizens as well as elected officials and employees of the state of Missouri and its political subdivisions shall have the right to pray on government premises and public property so long as such prayers abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances; that the General Assembly and the governing bodies of political subdivisions may extend to ministers, clergypersons, and other individuals the privilege to offer invocations or other prayers at meetings or sessions of the General Assembly or governing bodies; that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs; that the state shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances; and, to emphasize the right to free exercise of religious expression, that all free public schools receiving state appropriations shall display, in a conspicuous and legible manner, the text of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States; but this section shall not be construed to expand the rights of prisoners in state or local custody beyond those afforded by the laws of the United States, excuse acts of licentiousness, nor to justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state, or with the rights of others.

           Section B. Pursuant to Chapter 116, RSMo, and other applicable constitutional provisions and laws of this state allowing the General Assembly to adopt ballot language for the submission of a joint resolution to the voters of this state, the official ballot title of the amendment proposed in Section A shall be as follows:

           “Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to ensure:

           •          That the right of Missouri citizens to express their religious beliefs shall not be infringed;

           •   &
nbsp;      That school children have the right to pray and acknowledge God voluntarily in their schools; and

           •          That all public schools shall display the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution.”.

[emphasis (changes) in original]

…that students may express their beliefs about religion in written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their work; that no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs…

Question. If a Pastafarian is served spaghetti at a school lunch will they be able to accuse everyone else in the lunchroom of blasphemy? Just asking.

And then, in the interest of complete religious freedom, there’s this: Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)

What would control? The individual’s religious expression? Who gets to decide? Just asking.

As a commenter pointed out in January:

“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.”

— Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)

And as I concluded in January:

…As long as there are tests there will always be prayer in school. And as long as there’s a Missouri General Assembly there’ll always be state representatives who’ll waste everyone’s time introducing redundant legislation.

Brace yourself for “Talk Like a Pirate Day” in our public schools across Missouri.

“It’s one of the most wrongheaded decisions in court history,” said Sen. Chuck Shumer of New York, referring the Supreme Court’s decision to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of cash supporting or opposing candidates.

Nobody would claim there needs to be more money in electoral theater, and yet removing any impedance to corporate political spending has some heralding the highest Court’s recent ruling as a victory for free speech and others proclaiming the end of democracy that the “floodgates of corruption, now burst open.”

Politicos and people in the know see Big Money as the primary influence in determining election results, and without any restraints, the national trajectory toward plutocracy and even forms of subtle fascism is paved.  

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen, said, “Corporations are not people, they do not vote, and they should not be able to influence election outcomes. It is time to end this debate by amending the Constitution to make clear that First Amendment rights belong to natural persons and the press and do not apply to for-profit corporations.”

Several online movements to amend the US Constitution have sprung up to assert once and for all that free speech is for people — not corporations. Harvard Professor Lawrence Lessig has launched “Call a Convention” to propose and pass an amendment preserving Congressional independence from outside influences — especially fiscal benefactors.

Another initiative, Free Speech for People, calls for an amendment movement to address the legal fiction known as “corporate personhood” by asserting that First Amendment free speech rights are the exclusive domain of living organic human beings — and not to be granted to artificial constructs like trans-national conglomerates.

A series of cases before the Supreme Court throughout the 19th century has built the legal framework surrounding corporate personhood, culminating in the pivotal Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad in 1886 where the tacit conclusion saw corporations as “legal persons”.

The most poignant distillation of corporate personhood appeared in a 2004 article by Molly Morgan and Jan Edwards entitled “Abolish Corporate Personhood.”

“Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property. Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.”

House Democrat Donna Edwards recently introduced an amendment in Congress, stating,

“The ruling reached by the Roberts’ Court overturned decades of legal precedent by allowing corporations unfettered spending in our political campaigns. Another law will not rectify this disastrous decision. A Constitutional Amendment is necessary to undo what this Court has done. Justice Brandeis got it right: ‘We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.’ It is time we remove corporate influence from our policies and our politics. We cannot allow corporations to dominate our elections, to do so would be both undemocratic and unfair to ordinary citizens.”

But what has passed under the radar for over a century is a little known mechanism known as an Article V Convention. The Article V Convention was designed into the Constitution as a way to contend with entrenched corruption, like when representatives are bought-and-paid for — or when the Supreme Court overturns a century of legal precedent.  

Some facts to consider:

* The Constitution says when 2/3rds of the States apply for a convention, Congress shall call a convention to propose amendments.

* James Madison said in 1789 that State applications for a convention will accumulate after being sent to Congress until the 2/3rds threshold is met, at which time an amendatory convention shall be called without delay.

* Alexander Hamilton stated that calling the Article V Convention is a non-discretionary action by Congress and a “peremptory” obligation, meaning without debate.

* Until a little over a year ago, there was no central repository or reference containing a complete record of all the State’s Article V applications.

* Friends of Article V Convention (FOAVC) sponsored an audit of the Congressional record and discovered over 700 applications from all 50 states — 500 since 1960. They can be viewed at foavc.org.

* Since the required number of state’s applications to trigger the convention is 34, and over 700 from all 50 states have been sent to Congress, the legislative branch of the United States Federal Government is currently in breach of the direct, simple and unambiguous language of the Constitution, Supreme Law of the Land.

In conclusion, the people have been denied their say in helping to right a now nearly capsizing ship-of-state. Checks-and-balances are good things. They are tools. Just as much as top-down corrections have served our nation like in freeing the slaves, or getting women the right to vote, bottom-up checks-and-balances are just as necessary — especially when faced with a recalcitrant Congress unable or unwilling to self-correct.

FOAVC wants to see Congress obey the Constitution and issue the call for the Article V Convention. An Article V Convention will re-invigorate our representative democracy through a robust and public debate on amendments like abolishing corporate personhood, campaign finance reform, free speech for people, election reform, balanced budget, etc. No extreme ideas will survive the amendatory process as 3/4ths of the states (38) must ratify any proposed amendments to become law, thereby eliminating any radically partisan proposals and making absolutely impossible what many fear: a “runaway” convention.

As we are now faced with the ramifications of a legal coup d’état from an activist and elitist Supreme Court, it’s time to dust off the real intent of the Framers and put into action the very tool made for the occasion: an Article V Convention to visit some ideas whose time has come; to open up a new front for the people in the great procession and serenade of the through-composed American political opus.

Remember Paul Curtman, the  young marine who has been elevated to state-wide celebrity status among the teapartiers because of of his theatrics at a constituent meeting last spring? He provided quite a show that evening when, gesturing dramatically, he declared that both he and McCaskill:

… took an oath to defend the constitution; hers took her to Washington, my oath took me overseas with a rifle.

The point he was leading up to was a dramatic demand that Claire McCaskill apologize because she did not support the same discredited, right-wing interpretation of the constitution that he ascribes to — an interpretation that challenges the right of government to legislate for the welfare of the people.  (See here and here for more background on these constitutional claims.)

Seems others in the GOP want to reap a little of the glory that adheres to the marriage of military bravado and the role of constitutional defender. According to TPM, Georgia Representative Paul Broun is going in for the same type of posturing directed at Nancy Pelosi:

When I was sworn into the Marine Corps, I was sworn to uphold the Constitution against every enemy, foreign and domestic. We’ve got a lot of domestic enemies of the Constitution and one of those sits in the speaker’s chair of the United States Congress, Nancy Pelosi.

Next best thing to telling these uppity broads to stay in their place, right?  

Brett Penrose on things that have been trashed or lost in the Oval Office during the course of the previous eight years.

Didn’t dubya attempt to be tastelessly funny about what he did in the Oval Office a few years ago?

Glen Greenwald hits another one out of the park:

…So much of this comes from the constant fetishizing of the President as the Supreme Leader, “our” Commander-in-Chief, rather than — as the Constitution explicitly states — “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.” In the U.S., private actors don’t have government “commanders” who can “order” or “direct” them to do anything. Even soldiers, for whom the President is actually the Commander-in-Chief, are prohibited from obeying unlawful orders. Yet here is Nancy Soderberg — in tandem with the rest of the political establishment — claiming that private telecoms were justified, even compelled, to obey unlawful “orders” from the President, and are therefore entitled to be immunized from consequences…

[emphasis added]

Now that’s America. As for Glen Greenwald? We are not worthy.

And some people want to hand over the keys to the store to McSame…

Governor Matt “baby” Blunt still doesn’t seem to understand the Missouri Constitution. Or, has he ever bothered to read it?

Article I, Section 7

Public aid for religious purposes–preferences and discriminations on religious grounds.

Section 7. That no money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect or denomination of religion, or in aid of any priest, preacher, minister or teacher thereof, as such; and that no preference shall be given to nor any discrimination made against any church, sect or creed of religion, or any form of religious faith or worship.

And, there’s this:

Article IX, Section 8

Prohibition 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.

With all that, why is he bothering with this?

JEFFERSON CITY – Gov. Matt Blunt today unveiled Faith-Based Missouri, his new initiative to increase cooperation between state government and faith and community-based groups in providing services to Missourians in need….

….Blunt announced the first step of Faith-Based Missouri, a five person team he charged with studying how we can improve relations between state government and religious and secular charities.

The team will include three Missourians with life-long ties to faith-based communities and state employees who share the governor’s commitment to building Faith-Based Missouri.  The community team members will travel the state to meet with leaders in Missouri churches and charities to learn:

  1) what we are doing right

  2) what we are doing wrong

  3) what we can do to encourage greater cooperation

Well, according to the Missouri Constitution you can’t give them any funds, can you?

He must be trying to shore up his eroding base.

The press release continues:

….The governor and agency directors will rely on the Faith-Based Missouri team for guidance and suggestions as to how the state can better transform lives and empower Missourians….

How about operating government with a premise other than “suffering is good for everyone but the advantaged?”

The following individuals have been appointed to the “team”:

The governor announced the following Missourians have agreed to serve on the inaugural Faith-Based Missouri team:

Dr. Reynaldo Anderson, of St. Louis, is an assistant professor of education at Harris-Stowe University. Dr. Anderson has published numerous articles regarding the African American experience. His life has been varied with involvement in the United States military, grassroots political activity, church and academic research and study. He is a dedicated member of Saint Peter AME Church in St. Louis.

Rev. Andrew Rollins III, of Kansas City is an ordained Itinerant Elder in the AME Church whose family has a long history of ministry and community service. As a youth he was nurtured on the civil rights movement and at an early age he became concerned about the state, future and destiny of his community.  He believes the mission of the church should be holistic ministering to the spirit, and soul and body.

Sheriff Greg White, of Cole County, is an ordained Baptist minister with a lifetime of experience in serving his fellow Americans. He understands how to bridge religious and cultural divides, and has some innovative ideas on how faith-based organizations can serve Missourians through disaster response coordination.

Ed Martin, of Jefferson City, serves as Gov. Matt Blunt’s Chief of Staff.  Martin was the Father McGivney Fellow for Rights of Conscience with Americans United for Life and is an active member in the Catholic Church. He previously served as director of the Human Rights Office for the Archdiocese of St. Louis and as chairman of the Papal Visit Committee for Social Concerns for Pope John Paul II’s visit to St. Louis.

Angel McCormick Franks, of St. Louis, is the Director of the Office of Supplier and Workforce Diversity and has traveled the state working to promote diversity within the state government and improve the opportunities for women and minorities to access state employment opportunities and state contracts.

Obviously Ed Martin isn’t going to be relying on the Missouri judiciary for help on this particular task.