• About
  • The Poetry of Protest

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

Show Me Progress

Tag Archives: Jay Nixon

Speaker Tim Jones (r) and HB 253: hone your legal analytical skills litigating birth certificates

30 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Chris Koster, HB 253, Jay Nixon, missouri, Tim Jones

Prior performance guarantees the same result when it comes to right wingnuts.

Yesterday, via Twitter, Speaker Tim Jones (r) took issue with Attorney general Chris Koster’s letter:

Tim W. Jones ‏@SpeakerTimJones

FINALLY: @koster4missouri defines himself: Obama/Nixon, Big Gov, tax & spend liberal. At least Missourians know. #MOHouse GOP:reduces taxes. 4:10 PM – 29 Aug 13

Which prompted a response from Yael Abouhalkah at the Kansas City Star:

Yael T. Abouhalkah ‏@YaelTAbouhalkah

Lame, name-calling response from @SpeakerTimJones to @Koster4Missouri smackdown of GOP’s #HB253. Any LEGAL problems w/opinion? 4:13 PM – 29 Aug 13

“…Any LEGAL problems w/opinion?…”

As if that would be a consideration? Just asking

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)

HB 253: Because those dissolute leeches at the public trough should shut up, that’s why! (August 28, 2013)

Missouri Democratic Party on HB 253: Yes, yes, let’s talk about Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r)…. (August 28, 2013)

AG Chris Koster (D) to Speaker Jones (r) on HB 253: you all certainly made a mess of things… (August 29, 2013)

Missouri Democratic Party on HB 253: Yes, yes, let’s talk about Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r)….

29 Thursday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

HB 253, Jay Nixon, missouri, Rick Perry, Texas, veto

A video from the Missouri Democratic Party:

Narrator: You know, here’s the thing, Governor Rick Perry’s ads about HB 253 sound pretty good.

Texas Governor Rick Perry (r): This is Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Narrator: If you don’t happen to know anything about what HB 253 actually does. You see, it’s the GOP tax scheme that would give the favored few a tax cut of twelve hundred bucks a year. And the average Missourian? Their tax cut would only be enough to pay for a Big Mac.

As Governor [Jay] Nixon’s [D] pointed out, it would make devastating cuts to our schools and to mental health services. And it would even raise the tax on prescription drugs.

And the worst part? Is Governor Perry’s running ads trying to steal Missouri Jobs.

Texas Governor Rick Perry (r): Because Missouri families and businesses know Texas is a great place to live and work.

Narrator: Maybe Governor Perry gets by with silliness like this in Texas.

[Texas has a lower graduation rate than Missouri.]

After all, he doesn’t take very good care of his schools.

But I’ve got bad news for Governor Perry. Missourians are too smart to fall for his nonsense.

[emphasis in original]

That left a mark. Heh.

It just goes to show, you don’t bring an idiot to a knife fight.

Previously:

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem (August 24, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): your constituents know what you’re doing to them (August 26, 2013)

HB 253: Because those dissolute leeches at the public trough should shut up, that’s why! (August 28, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): what the electoral base really wants

27 Tuesday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

4th Congressional District, HB 436, Jay Nixon, missouri, nullification, veto, Vicky Hartzler

Yesterday, via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Free #Job fair this Thurs in Lebanon. RT if you or a friend is a job seeker. Let’s get #MO back to work! [….] 2:31 PM – 26 Aug 13

And this priceless reply:

Not Sure ‏@adr3n 9h

@RepHartzler override Nixon’s veto of hb436 so we can get some long term manufacturing jobs!! 6:54 PM – 26 Aug 13

On so many levels…

The pseudonym says it all. HB 436 is the gun/federal nullification bill passed by the Missouri General Assembly this past legislative session which was then vetoed by Governor Jay Nixon (D). Uh, members of the U.S. House of Representatives don’t get to participate in the Missouri General Assembly veto session.

Not quite sure if it’s performance art or not.

Previously:

Epistemic closure, still here, alive, kicking, though not quite screaming (August 7, 2013)

Campaign Finance: What on earth for? – part 2

26 Monday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign finance, Jay Nixon, missouri, Missouri Ethics Commission

Yesterday, at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C001135 08/24/2013 A BETTER MISSOURI WITH GOVERNOR JAY NIXON Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P., d/b/a AT&T Missouri One AT&T Center Room 4200 Saint Louis MO 63101 8/22/2013 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

That’s a lot of money but not really a lot of money, if you know what I mean.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: What on earth for? (June 30, 2013)

Campaign Finance: very interesting (April 16, 2013)

Campaign Finance: still not running for anything (February 9, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r) to UCM on HB 253: I don’t care, I’d rather be the new Speaker Pro Tem

24 Saturday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Chuck Ambrose, Denny Hoskins, HB 253, Jay Nixon, Marvin "Bunky" Wright, missouri, UCM, University of Central Missouri, veto

Yesterday morning Representative Denny Hoskins (r) appeared with Senator David Pearce (r) before the University of Central Missouri Board of Governors meeting on campus in Warrensburg. The effect of a veto override of HB 253 was the main subject of the conversation.  

And, we may have an idea of the latest whip count.

“….Um, you know, my personal opinion on, on 253, currently I, I do not believe the votes are there for a override of the Governor veto. Uh, could that change? Yes, it could change….”

The transcript:

[….]

Representative Denny Hoskins (r) : ….And I want to commend UCM [University of Central Missouri], uh, professors, staff, Board of Governors that, uh, we are a, a shining star, uh, among the state universities. And a lot of the different things that we’re doing, um, are models for a lot of the other state schools. And so I’m going to commend, uh, the Board of Governors and professors and staff on that.

And one of those items that, that, uh, President Obama talked about was the Senate Bill 381. We did have the [inaudible] Nixon come in and sign that bill earlier this year.  Uh, it really, that’s, uh, a great bill, a great law that’s , will go into effect August twenty-eighth. And so I want to commend the University for supporting us on that. As well as, uh, commend the House sponsor and as well the Senate sponsor, as that gone through to create that fund in order to further the innovation campus.

Um, in other news, and before I turn it over to Senator [David] Pearce [r], uh, we did have the Speaker Pro Tem election this past, uh,  weekend and I’m glad to report that I am the new Speaker Pro Tem of the Missouri State House of Representatives. So that is the number two leadership spot in the Missouri State House of Representatives. I’m excited about, uh, the opportunity that will afford me for, to help out UCM as well as, uh, 54th District and the State of Missouri. So, I’m transitioning into that new role, uh, in leadership and therefore I, I will be giving up my, uh, chairmanship of the Appropriations for Economic Development and, [inaudible] five other ones on there, Department of Revenue, Department of Insurance, Department of Labor, and, uh, MoDOT. So, it’s, uh, kind of a transition period for us as we lead up to veto session on September eleventh….

[….]

Chuck Ambrose, President, University of Central Missouri: ….and, of course, this has been in, in, very, uh, specific spotlight across the state, uh, both from the Governor and the legislature going into veto section, session. I think, uh, for us, just specifically focusing that on the impact on the University of Central Missouri. We’re, we’re at a point where we’re educating the most students, graduating the most students, maintaining a high level of performance, and done everything, uh, as diligent as we possibly can to be good stewards of our resources.  Um, and, uh, [Senator] David {Pearce], as you mentioned the, the funding formula, and this appropriation cycle, even though we got an appropriations increase, uh, it did not meet the requirements of just our MOSER mandate, uh, to keep up with our retirement. And, uh, as best as we understand it, uh, the range of potential, uh, negative impact on general revenue could range from six hundred million dollars, uh, kind of in a best case, uh, to maybe as much as one point two billion [dollars], uh, in a worst case. And then of course anywhere, as you know as appropriators, anywhere in that kind of loss of revenue would, would mean, as the Governor said, the very difficult, uh, time that even thinking about running state government they way we’re currently running it. Certainly, we continue to be more efficient. Um, but, with his tack of maintaining the state’s triple A bond rating by, uh, putting the withhold, uh, in place currently, at two hundred thousand dollars a month [for UCM] and a projected two and a half million dollar loss off, uh, appropriations in this fiscal year, uh, without passing significant costs on students, which we know one of the best things that we collectively have done together is hold our increases in costs down, uh, it would be catastrophic for the University of Central Missouri. And there would be no way for us to meet this fiscal challenge, uh, without reducing workforce, uh, or significant, and when I say significant, it would be major double digit tuition increases passed on to our students. And we all know that they simply just can’t afford it. Uh, and we’ve heard from, you know, all of the public sector, and, of course, K-12 has been very direct in its impact with resolutions from board, you know, school boards and, uh, but we would ask, uh, especially at a time when we are trying to, to run as a, as high performers to meet the state’s needs, and as you said, trying to, to create the, the future from here, uh, it, it would not just slow our momentum, uh, it, it would take it away from us. Um, so, I, I would like to just ask, you know, where is it, uh, what you would suggest for us to do, uh, to underlie its impact not just on Central Missouri and our students, uh, but across the state, uh, across education, uh, and, and certainly, uh, within scarce resources? Uh, and if we look across the border to our west, there’s no demonstration that, that that tax experiment done, has done anything to, to strengthen, uh, resources to, to put into, to teaching. So, I, I just ask, what can we do, where are we, uh, and, uh?

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): I get, I guess, uh, the first question I have, I know that we ended up with four hundred million dollar surplus over, um, this past fiscal year and the Governor decided to withhold that. So, had the board taken any position on asking the Governor to release the withholds?

Chuck Ambrose, President, University of Central Missouri: Well, we talked to the Governor about releasing the withhold.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): Great.

Chuck Ambrose, President, University of Central Missouri: And, uh, and absolutely, uh, and as John Merrigan would put it, [inaudible], right now, uh, with his tack, uh, it is two hundred thousand dollars of, of cash, uh, withheld money which would not take us very long to feel. Uh, and I, I guess the only thing he’s come back with and said, until we get through veto session and know where that’s gonna go that he will continue [withholding]. And if it is overturned his intent would be to keep that [inaudible].

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): There are a lot of different groups out there and, and I know the Governor has, uh, his groups and his talking points, as well as what, uh, he, uh, believes to be a cat, catastrophic, uh, shortfall of revenue. I’m of, I’m of the other opinion. I don’t, I don’t believe that there, I believe that the Governor’s playing political games and, uh, he’s, he’s hitting all the right groups and withholding these funds even though that the money is right there, uh, in order to use. And I disagree with the Governor philosophically as far as what a tax cut would do for the State of Missouri, uh, on a personal side, uh, incremental tax cut of twenty-five percent over the next ten years. And that’s only happens if, uh, revenue, general revenue increase a hundred million dollars [inaudible] each year. So, uh, [inaudible]. Again, that does not happen if general revenue doesn’t, doesn’t increase at least a hundred million dollars. So, philosophically the, the Governor and I have a difference of opinion on, uh, [inaudible]. I know you mentioned Kansas, uh, our, our neighbor to the west. We’ve seen other states such as Tennessee, Oklahoma, uh, Texas. And you know, if you haven’t heard yet Governor Rick Perry is coming to Missouri next week and he’s launched a campaign to try and lure, uh, Missouri businesses to, uh, Texas, the State of Texas. And, um, you know, [inaudible] the low, the low tax state as well as, uh, a state that’s very friendly toward business and, and the economy.

So, I guess, I understand your concerns and many of my colleagues have those same concerns on both sides of the aisle. Uh, I do have, I do share some of those concerns but philosophically I believe that, that those can be overcome and I do not believe in, in the doomsday, uh, projections that, uh, Governor Nixon has, has said. Um, and I’ve gone on record and I said I, I guarantee that if House Bill 253 [veto] was  overridden education would not receive less money next year. We will not fulfill the Governor’s promise. That, that’s kind of where I stand [inaudible]. Senator [David] Pearce and I agree on a lot of things and, uh, we, we have a difference of opinion on, on this issue. So….

[….]

Chuck Ambrose, President, University of Central Missouri: ….Uh, but, you know, I, I, I’m taking the Governor on his word he’s gonna maintain the withhold if his veto is overturned.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r) : This has been a point of contention with the, uh, Missouri General Assembly as well as the Governor’s office. Um, and something will probably get [inaudible] to take to court. Constitutionally the Governor is not supposed to withhold unless the revenue’s not there. But the revenue’s there and [inaudible] he’s still deciding to withhold.

Um, you know, my personal opinion on, on 253, currently I, I do not believe the votes are there for a override of the Governor veto. Uh, could that change? Yes, it could change. I have, uh, been in discussions with, with some of the different groups, education as well as business groups. Uh, in the event that it is not overridden on September eleventh, come together [inaudible] work out a, uh, tax cut as well as, uh, provide adequate funding for education….

[….]

Marvin “Bunky” Wright, President, University of Central Missouri Board of Governors:  ….Uh, the board has discussed at great length this whole situation. You can refer to it as a difference in philosophy, frankly, I don’t care what you refer to it as. Uh, this board has got responsibility of this University. And I’ve seen President Ambrose, the faculty, the staff, everybody cut to the core budgetwise in the last three years. Uh, the last thing we need is a further crunch because of political differences. There isn’t any political difference when it comes to higher education when we’ve got responsibility. And we would ask that the two of you [Rep. Hoskins and Senator Pearce], uh, do not support the position of overriding this veto. I mean, we can’t sit back and wonder who’s right or wrong, because some money’s gonna go by the wayside. And whatever it is is gonna hurt us. So, you know, we would ask you to support this University which is in your district and the people. We think we’re one of the best universities in the state. I happen to think it is the best. A lot of it is due to the help of people like you. And we’re asking you again, and I’d like to go on record for this board as requesting that you support us, uh, in this override session. We appreciate you coming in very much. If you ever have any questions, why, give us a call. We’ll try to answer them.

Representative Denny Hoskins (r): Thank you.

[….]

Philosophically, giving tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires while increasing the burden on seniors and the poor through an added sales tax on their prescription medications is a good thing. Philosophically.

Philosophically, giving tax breaks to billionaires and millionaires while defunding the infrastructure of society and diminishing access to a quality education is a good thing. Philosophically.

Philosophically, holding up the less than erudite Governor of another state making a political visit to poach jobs from your own state as an ideal is a good thing. Philosophically.

….Governor Perry (r) is wasting money traveling to Missouri (paid for by TexasOne) to poach jobs and advocate for a change in Missouri law (HB 253) that would ostensibly (in his opinion) make it more difficult for Texas to poach Missouri jobs? Uh, definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer….

Philosophically, being the new Speaker Pro Tem of the Missouri House is more important than representing the interests of the voters in your district. Philosophically.

If you’re in the right wingnut majority in control of the Missouri General Assembly, that is.

Previously:

New Missouri Rule: if the governor governs right of center you can’t call him a “liberal” (July 1, 2013)

Bill signing Kabuki (July 12, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.” (July 19, 2013)

Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): probably not gonna sustain the Governor’s veto of HB 253 (August 19, 2013)

Sec. of State Jason Kander (D) to Texas Gov. Rick Perry (r): You forgot about that Medicaid thing? (August 23, 2013)

The Governor’s Ham Breakfast at the Missouri State Fair – 2013

16 Friday Aug 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Billy Long, Clint Zweifel, Dean Dohrman, Jason Kander, Jay Nixon, missouri, Roy Blunt, Russ Carnahan, State Fair, Timothy Jones, Vicky Hartzler

The Governor’s Ham Breakfast at the State Fair is the one annual event that is usually the largest gathering of politicians in Missouri, outside of when the General Assembly is in session. The attendance this year appeared down when compared to last year.

There was no forest of campaign signs (okay, I saw a couple of lonely Tom Schweich (r) yard signs) and no gauntlet of campaign t-shirted volunteers offering to plaster attendees with candidate campaign stickers.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) and Attorney General Chris Koster (D) did not attend.

We spent some time talking with media people who don’t despise bloggers. Yes, there are a few. And we had the opportunity to talk with some state representatives and a state senator. We asked about the coming override vote on Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of HB 253. We got some interesting responses. It appears that the Democrats believe that if the override vote were held today the Governor’s veto would be sustained. The republicans are telling others in the media that “it’ll be close” but they believe they will have the upper hand.

The buzz is that some wavering republican representatives are receiving pressure from constituents to sustain the Governor’s veto and pressure from republican leadership, facing loss of committee chairmanships, if they do.

School districts and their constituencies have been doing a good job about communicating their displeasure with HB 253. Higher education not so much.

Nope, this wasn’t on the menu, but it was the grand champion cabbage at the Missouri State Fair.

Missouri Secretary of State Jason Kander (D).

Senator Roy Blunt (r).

Speaker of the Missouri House, Timothy Jones (r).

State Auditor Tom Schweich (r).

In the parking lot, on a candidate’s vehicle:

Yeah, right, give the base a reason to sit on their hands in the general election.

The Governor’s Ham Breakfast is a convenient opportunity for getting file photographs of Missouri politicians. We take a lot of photographs. Some don’t turn out:

Facial expressions captured via still photography like this happen to everyone. That’s one reason why we take a lot of photographs.

Some do:

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r).

That’s better.

There was a sign posted at the entry this year stating that photography or video recording were forbidden, unless you had a media credential. Maybe someone thought the trackers were getting to be a bit much.

Former Representative Russ Carnahan (D).

Representative Billy Long (r).

State Senator Ron Richard (r).

State Representative Dean Dohrman (r), 51st District.

We spoke with several representatives about the upcoming override of Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of HB 253. We didn’t get to ask Representative Dean Dohrman (r). He voted for the bill in the regular session, thereby screwing school districts and the higher education institutions in or near his district.

Governor Jay Nixon (D) at the breakfast.

At the point during the breakfast that the auction of the champion hams and bacon started under the tent we exited to check out the fair. In the Home Economics Building they were checking in pies for judging.

If I had only had a fork with me…

And they were judging rabbits in the poultry/rabbit shed:

Making a run for it on the judging table…

State Treasurer Clint Zweifel (D) made the rounds on the fairgrounds after the breakfast, here greeting people in one of the agriculture buildings.

There are vendor booths all over the fairgrounds:

Is anyone surprised?

Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder (r) at the republican party tent on the fairgrounds after the breakfast.

And we check one off the list:

Yes, we got a photo of the butter sculpture, sort of.

At the Missouri State Fair last night (August 11, 2013)

Of state fair rodeo announcers and clowns: res ipsa loquitur (August 12, 2013)

You know you’ve struck a nerve… (August 12, 2013)

We don’t get a lot of mail (August 13, 2013)

Seriously? (August 14, 2013)

In the parking lot at the Missouri State Fair (August 15, 2013)

Rep. Chris Kelly (D): HB 253 – “I’d like to know what your opinion is.”

19 Friday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Chris Kelly, HB 253, Jay Nixon, letter, missouri, veto

“…The truth is that you are being used by a small group of very self interested people.  When, in the future, you read about the manipulation of the government by a few super rich people at the expense of average citizens remember that you actively participated in just such a scheme when you sent this letter…”

Representative Chris Kelly (D). [file photo]

Representative Chris Kelly (D) replied to a letter he received on HB 253. The letter he received:

Dear Representative Kelly:

HB253 is the first opportunity in nearly 100 years to reduce taxes for all Missourians – and take a stand on the side of every day Missourians who have weathered the storm of this economic recession instead of special interests and government bureaucrats who only wish to serve their own interests.

Perhaps more importantly, HB253 would allow Missouri to stop spending and start growing by directing an increase in state revenues back to taxpayers instead of into expanding the size of government that promotes greater waste.

I urge you to support HB253 during the upcoming veto session.

Sincerely,

[xxxx]

The response from Representative Kelly (D):

Dear [xxxx],

Thank you for the letter regarding HB 253.

The bill is significant to me not simply as a state rep but also as a taxpayer.  I am 66 years old and had a heart attack this past May.  I now take six different pre[s]cription medications.  253 imposes the state sales tax on that medicine.  My pharmacist calculated that if the veto override, which you support is successful I will pay about $140 per year in sales tax; significantly more than any benefit from the income tax decrease.  I am not alone.  In fact I am probably paying less for medicine than most people in my demographic (geezers).  

The bill also imposes the sales tax on college text books.

In addition,  the bill allows income tax payers to go back three years to file amended returns and receive more refunds.  The sponsors claim that this is a “mistake”.  They now say that the prescription medicine tax is a mistake.  If anyone in the private sector made those kind of mistakes they would be fired.

That amounts to about  half a billion dollars worth of “mistakes”.  It turns out that all the “mistakes” are things wanted by Rex Sin[que]field, the guy who made more than $1.5 million in campaign contributions to the supporters of the bill.

This is one of the sloppiest bills I have seen in my 17 years in the House.  It is a disgrace that any legislator would allow it to move forward, if for no other reason than its quality.

The truth is that you are being used by a small group of very self interested people.  When, in the future, you read about the manipulation of the government by a few super rich people at the expense of average citizens remember that you actively participated in just such a scheme when you sent this letter.

The very wealthy will see a huge benefit and average people will pay the tab. Every supporter of [HB]253 should be ashamed.

A further note.  The letter you sent me is a form written by the media people who are funding the political campaign for [HB] 253.  I’d like to know what your opinion is.

Chris Kelly

And that’s how you deal with astroturf.

GOP descent into madness continues

08 Monday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Brian Nieves. Gun control legislation, GOP, Jay Nixon, Legislative veto, missouri, Repubican Party

I noted last week the comments of a Guardian correspondent, Michael Cohen, that the most interesting aspect of recent politics was the “rapid descent of the Republican Party into madness.” Today Steve Benen remarks that “there’s a strain of madness in today’s GOP, and it remains terribly unsettling.” Benen’s comment was occasioned by  Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of Brian Nieves’ “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the mother of all nullification bills. Benen derided the bill itself as well as Nieves’ – described as “a deeply confused Republican state senator” – response to its veto  

Benen aptly summarizes the gist of the bill:

Many of us have grown accustomed to a certain degree of nuttiness in Republican policymaking in the 21st century, but even by today’s GOP standards, this was just insane: “The bill seeks to nullify any and all past and future federal laws that might infringe upon Missouri’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is very different from the Supreme Court’s and which can be summarized thusly: Anything goes.”

And yet, it passed the GOP-led state legislature anyway. …

See where we’re all going when it comes to to the question of GOP lunacy? Neives’ entirely bonkers response to the veto was perfectly in character, replete with the emotive capitalization, and lavish use of exclamation marks that seems to characterize all his writing efforts:

I just couldn’t resist sharing this! Here we see our esteemed governor B___slapping BOTH the 2nd AND 10th Amendments at the same time! He then has the Gall, the Nerve, to stand in front of the people of Missouri and “say” he supports the 2nd Amendment?!?! … *

These words not only reveal the superficiality and ignorance of Nieves, but the reflect the fevered mental processes of a person who has moved so far beyond rationality that he should excite fear. Instead, fellow Missourians in the heavily Republican 26th district continue to elect him to state office. When it comes to the idea of collective madness, need one say more?

* The RiverFront Times offers a screenshot of the Nieves Facebook rant from which the quote above was taken; the RFT notes that cooler heads seems to have prevailed and the post has subsequently been removed (or RFT access was blocked). If your’re in the mood for a laugh, there’s more on the Facebook comments here.

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.

What’s wrong with Missouri? Could it be the GOP?

04 Thursday Jul 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

GOP, Jay Nixon, Legislative veto, missouri, Republican Party

The fallout from the 2013 legislative session ought to give Missourians pause. To date, Governor Nixon has vetoed 23 bills that made it out of the session – and he still has 10 days in which to increase that total. And given that the infamous gun bill that seeks to nullify all federal gun legislation is still outstanding, we can only cross our fingers and hope that our governor will go for at least one more veto.  

Some of these bills are truly, horrendously dangerous and the governor had no other option but to veto them. I’m mainly thinking here of the corporate tax cut bill that aimed to take us down the same road as Kansas – which just had its economic development credit rating downgraded as a result of its tax “reform.” Others, while potentially harmful, are little more than exercises in fantasy. Here I’m referencing bills like those that sought to ban Sharia law or Agenda 21, you know, major threats that keep us up at night – at least those of us who’re both brain dead and paranoid.

Some bills, however, failed the smell test because they were, as the Governor noted, “shoddily drafted.” In other words, the whiz kids we sent to Jefferson City can’t manage to write legislation that doesn’t overshoot its goals or isn’t so carelessly crafted that it could withstand a legal challenge. I guess it’s just too hard to write laws when you don’t have some outside lobbyist or the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) handing you model legislation you can crib off of.

So far, I’ve just been describing what the Republican majority in the legislature actually did. What they didn’t do is equally remarkable. Transportation infrastructure funding, tax credit reform, the state’s outstanding education needs, you name it, they couldn’t deal with it effectively – and given their favored solutions, we should all probably hold our tongues and hope the stalemate continues.

Finally, in addition to what the legislators did that they shouldn’t do, and what they couldn’t do, there are the things they wouldn’t do. Foremost in that category is make sure that over 260,000 uninsured Missourians get health care. In order to keep these folks uninsured, our brilliant lawmakers had to turn down big wads of federal money – money that Missouri tax payers send to the federal government that would have been returned to the state. And that money would not only have helped the uninsured, but would have boosted the health care industry and created jobs.

To be fair, House Speaker Tim Jones has appointed some study groups to consider “Medicaid reform” prior to the next session. There are those who think that this action may be a ploy to escape the possibly very bad consequences of not taking the Feds’ Medicaid offer. What these groups will manage to produce, though, remains to be seen and if there’s a way to punish those who have to rely on Medicaid and to pare benefits to the minimum, I’ll bet Jones’ pals will manage to find it.

So all this leaves us with the question: Why do you suppose that our lawmakers are working to destroy the quality of life in our state? Why do they want Missouri to be a laughing stock? Do you think it might have something to do with the Republican majority in Jefferson City? Michel Cohen of the Guardian, speaking of the national level GOP, suggests that there could be some truth to that answer:

What is the single most consequential political development of the past five years? Some might say the election (and re-election) of Barack Obama; others might point to the passage of the most important piece of social policy (Obamacare) since the 1960s; some might even say the drawing down of US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in reality, it is the rapid descent of the Republican party into madness.

Never before in American history have we seen a political party so completely dominated and controlled by its extremist wing; and never before have we seen a political party that brings together the attributes of nihilism, heartlessness, radicalism and naked partisanship quite like the modern GOP. In a two-party system like America’s, the result is unprecedented dysfunction.

Add comically ignorant and it sounds like Missouri’s GOP to me.

 

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Recent Posts

  • Why we can’t have nice things – part the infinity
  • Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D) – Leeton, Missouri – August 29, 2026
  • Imagination!
  • Lunar Eclipse – August 27, 2026
  • Oh, Mapquest

Recent Comments

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver… on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D)…
Imagination! | Show… on A lack of imagination…
Campaign Finance: bu… on Campaign Finance: once again,…
Campaign Finance: th… on Campaign Finance: once again,…
A lack of imaginatio… on Mike Kehoe (r) and the right w…

Archives

  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • 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
  • Congress
  • Democratic Party News
  • Eric Schmitt
  • Healthcare
  • Hillary Clinton
  • Interview
  • Jason Smith
  • Josh Hawley
  • Mark Alford
  • 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
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

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

  • 1,083,498 hits

Powered by WordPress.com.

Loading Comments...