Randy Turner of The Turner Report says Brian Nieves’ claim that Governor Jay Nixon is a liar shows that Nieves plays fast-and-loose with the English language, coining “a new definition for liar – “Someone who vetoes one of sen. Nieves’ ridiculous bills.”  Turner is referring to Nieves outrage that Governor Nixon vetoed his baby, SB 267, a bill that tries to be clever by banning Muslim sharia law, a total non-threat, under the rubric of banning the influence of “foreign law.”

Nieves said that, based on the reasons Nixon cites for his veto in a statement addressed to the Secretary of State,  the Governor was lying about the bill’s potential for negative blowback and/or (it’s not clear which Nieves means to imply) that Nixon could not have actually read the bill.

Indeed, if you look at the text of the bill, you will find that Nieves and whoever else helped draft the bill tried to the best of their small abilities to answer objections to similar bills in the past. There’s an obligatory nod of the head to religious freedom, and the bill states, that it cannot preempt federal treaties or agreements with foreign powers that take precedence over state law. It also exempts corporations and similar legal entities from the act when they enter into agreements subject to foreign jurisdiction. One can imagine that Nieves’ outraged howls stem precisely from his conviction that he had taken every pain to insure that he could counter all the possible objections to his silly little exercise in pandering and bigotry.

However, the real bone of contention identified by Governor Nixon and, presumably, his legal advisors, seems to lie in the  terms that exempt Missourians from the legal influence of any foreign legal system or code that is deemed “inconsistent” with the Missouri or United States’ constitutions, or, otherwise, “repugnant.” We know that the former concept is often nebulous must frequently be determined by courts, which can be a time-consuming and expensive exercise; it is not clear who is the judge of what constitutes “repugnant” in this instance. And it is precisely the chilling effect of the uncertainty engendered by such language that forms the focus of Nixon’s arguments:

… . Because all foreign legal systems can be deemed inconsistent with our state and federal constitutions, Senate Substitute Bill No. 267 would needlessly cast doubt upon important legal instruments including wills, trusts, marriage and divorce decrees and contracts that involve foreign law … “

As you can see, it is not simply foreign adoptions, the point stressed in media accounts of Nixon’s veto, that could be endangered, but almost all international legal issues. Nixon’s rationale gives greater emphasis to adoption because the process is excessively fraught, what Nixon calls “an already challenging process.”

Further proof of Nixon’s careful and serious reading of the bill lies in his identification of a potential conflict with the Article 1, Section 13 of the Missouri constitution, which says “no … law impairing the obligation of contracts … can be enacted.” Further, SB 267 can also be interpreted as in conflict with the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution that “requires that states respect the ‘public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state'” – including contracts based wholly or in part on just those foreign legal systems that are called into question by Nieves’ little exercise in lawmaking.

I would take issue with Randy Turner’s characterization of Nieves’ boneheaded response only to the extent that it fails to note that Nieves is probably totally sincere, and truly believes that Governor Nixon could not possibly have read his masterpiece, or that, indeed, he is lying about its legal implications. After all, Nieves is not to blame because the nuanced reasoning contained in Nixon’s veto is far too complex for somebody who thinks that SB 267 could ultimately pass legal muster without harming the complex network of international legal relations. No, the folks to blame for this veto, along with all the expense and wasted time occasioned by SB 267, are the voters who sent this nimrod to Jefferson City in the first place.

“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)

The past week Missouri General Assembly did its utmost to hold back the tide of Sharia and international law cases contaminating our state courts. Yes, that’s sarcasm.

All nuts, all the time.

This has been a right wingnut obsession for quite some time.

Previously:

HJR 31: things that keep us awake at night worrying, part 2 (February 25, 2011)

Anti-Sharia bigotry in Missouri hides behind a constitutional pretense (March 28, 2012)

HB 1512: definitely not a jobs bill (March 27, 2012)

One question:

What does God need with a starship?

“…political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Prize…” (May 8, 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)

SB 265: tinfoil hats – there’s no such thing as a moderate republican (May 11, 2013)

SB 267, as truly agreed and finally passed on May 8th:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

[TRULY AGREED TO AND FINALLY PASSED]

SENATE SUBSTITUTE FOR

SENATE BILL NO. 267 [pdf]

97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

2013

1409S.02T

AN ACT

To amend chapter 506, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the laws of other countries.

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

Section A. Chapter 506, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 506.600, to read as follows:

506.600. 1. This section shall be known as the “Civil Liberties Defense Act”. The Missouri general assembly finds that it shall be the public policy of this state to protect its citizens from the application of foreign laws when the application of a foreign law will result in the violation of a right protected by the constitutions of the state of Missouri and the United States, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy.

2. The Missouri general assembly fully recognizes the right to contract freely under the laws of this state, and also recognizes that his right may be reasonably and rationally circumscribed pursuant to the state’s interest to protect and promote rights and privileges protected under the Missouri and United States constitutions, including, but not limited to, due process, freedom of religion, speech, or press, and any right of privacy.

3. As used in this section, the following terms mean:

(1) “Court”, any court, board, administrative agency, or other adjudicative or enforcement authority of this state;

(2) “Foreign law, legal code, or system”, any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals;

(3) “Religious organization”, any church, seminary, synagogue, temple, mosque, religious order, religious corporation, association, or society, whose identity is distinctive in terms of common religious creed, beliefs, doctrines, practices, or rituals, of any faith or denomination, including any organization qualifying as a church or religious organization under section 501(c)(3) or 501(d) of the United States Internal Revenue Code.

4. Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Missouri and United States constitutions.

5. A contract or contractual provisions, if capable of segregation, which provides for the choice of a law, legal code, or system to govern some or all of the disputes between the parties adjudicated by a court of law or by an arbitration panel arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the foreign law, legal code, or system chosen includes or incorporates any substantive or procedural law, as applied to the dispute at issue, that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Missouri and United States constitutions.

6. (1) A contract or contractual provisions, if capable of segregation, which provides for a jurisdiction for purposes of granting the courts or arbitration panels in personam jurisdiction over the parties to adjudicate any disputes between parties arising from the contract mutually agreed upon shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the jurisdiction chosen includes any foreign law, legal code, or system, as applied to the dispute at issue, that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Missouri and United States constitutions;

(2) If a resident of this state, subject to personal jurisdiction in this state, seeks to maintain litigation, arbitration, agency, or similarly binding proceedings in this state and if the courts of this state find that granting a claim of forum non conveniens or a related claim violates or would likely violate rights protected under the Missouri and United States constitutions of the nonclaimant in the foreign forum with respect to the matter in dispute, then it is the public policy of this state that the claim shall be denied.

7. Without prejudice to any legal right, this act shall not apply to a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, business association, or other legal entity that contracts to subject itself to foreign law in a jurisdiction other than this state or the United States.

8. No court or arbitrator shall interpret this act to limit the right of any person to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States constitution and by the constitution of this state. No court shall interpret this act to require or authorize any court to adjudicate, or prohibit any religious organization from adjudicating ecclesiastical matters, including, but not limited to, the election, appointment, calling, dismissal, removal, or excommunication of a member, officer, official, priest, nun, monk, pastor, rabbi, imam, or member of the clergy, of the religious organization, or determination or interpretation of the doctrine of the religious organization, where adjudication by a court would violate the constitution of this state or the prohibition of the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

9. This section shall not be interpreted by any court to conflict with any federal treaty or other international agreement to which the United States is a party to the extent that such treaty or international agreement preempts or is superior to state law on the matter at issue.

[emphasis in original]

….4. Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that is repugnant or inconsistent with the Missouri and United States constitutions….

Ah, that would be the blanket immunity from answering for crimes against humanity clause. I wonder who that was for? Just asking.

Think about that “any foreign law, legal code, or system” phrase for a minute. Apparently America popped into existence fully formed. One minute it wasn’t there, then, “poof”, it was. Go figure.

Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

…In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court…

Great Britain isn’t in the United States and we don’t have a king, right? Apparently we do have a Kenyan born usurper who’s gonna put us all in U.N. mandated FEMA gay marriage camps. But, I digress.

Damn, with one bill the Missouri General Assembly swept away over two hundred years of American legal precedent. They can do that?

In the Journal of the Missouri House for May, 8, 2013:

[….]

2267 Journal of the House [pdf]

[….]

SS SB 267, relating to the laws of other countries, was taken up by Representative Curtman.

Representative Diehl assumed the Chair.

On motion of Representative Curtman, SS SB 267 was truly agreed to and finally passed by

the following vote:

AYES: 109

Allen Anderson Austin Bahr Barnes

Bernskoetter Berry Black Brattin Brown

Burlison Cierpiot Conway 104 Cookson Cornejo

Cox Crawford Cross Curtm an Davis

Diehl Dohrman Dugger Elmer Engler

Entlicher Fitzpatrick Fitzwater Flanigan Fowler

Fraker Frame Franklin Frederick Gannon

Gatschenberger Gosen Grisamore Guernsey Haahr

Hampton Hansen Harris Hicks Higdon

Hinson Hoskins Hough Houghton Hurst

Johnson Jones 50 Justus Keeney Kelley 127

Koenig Kolkmeyer Korman Lair Lant

Lauer Leara Love Lynch Marshall

McGaugh Messenger Miller Molendorp Moon

Morris Muntzel Neely Neth Parkinson

Pfautsch Phillips Pike Pogue Redmon

Rehder Reiboldt Remole Rhoads Richardson

Riddle Roorda Ross Rowden Rowland

Schatz Schieber Schieffer Shull Shumake

Smith 120 Solon Sommer Spencer Stream

Swan Thomson Torpey Walker White

Wieland Wilson Wood Mr Speaker

NOES: 041

Anders Burns Butler Carpenter Colona

Conway 10 Curtis Dunn Ellinger Ellington

English Hodges Hubbard Hummel Kirkton

LaFaver May McCann Beatty McDonald McKenna

McManus McNeil Meredith Mitten Montecillo

Morgan Newman Nichols Norr Otto

Pace Peters Pierson Rizzo Runions

Schupp Smith 85 Swearingen Walton Gray Webb

Wright

PRESENT: 002

Englund Mayfield

ABSENT WITH LEAVE: 011

Funderburk Gardner Haefner Kelly 45 Kratky

Lichtenegger McCaherty Mims Scharnhorst Webber

Zerr

Representative Diehl declared the bill passed.

[….]

[emphasis added]

Well, Representative Dean Dohrman (r) and Representative Denny Hoskins (r) were three for three when it came to right wingnut dogma this past week. Nope, no moderates around there.