Tag Archives: Hardy Billington

HB 1200: to celebrate the reality of Missouri

19 Friday Feb 2021

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Our Missouri General Assembly, hard at work.

A bill, introduced in the Missouri House of Representatives:

HB 1200
Designates January 12 each year as “Rush Limbaugh Day”

Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2021
LR Number: 2498H.01I
Last Action: 02/19/2021 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1200
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1200 [pdf]
101ST GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILLINGTON.
2498H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, ChiefClerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 9, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to Rush Limbaugh day.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 9, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 9.319, to read as follows:
9.319. January twelfth each year is hereby designated as “Rush Limbaugh Day” in Missouri. Citizens of this state are encouraged to celebrate the day by participating in appropriate events and activities to remember the life of the famous Missourian and groundbreaking radio host.

“…Citizens of this state are encouraged to celebrate the day by participating in appropriate events and activities…”

Any bets on what some people will consider “appropriate events and activities”? Heh.

Previously:

Gaslighting as a way of life (February 17, 2021)

An Icon of what? (February 18, 2021)

HB 728: the right wingnut cult of religious victimhood

03 Wednesday Apr 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

“…quite a carve out.”

HB 728
Requires the name of the real party in interest to be named in civil actions involving the separation of church and state unless the party in interest is a minor
Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 1693H.01P
Last Action: 04/03/2019 – Perfected with Amendments (H)
Bill String: HB 728
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR PERFECTION – INFORMAL

1/29/2019 H 363 Introduced and Read First Time (H)
1/30/2019 H 377 Read Second Time (H)
2/07/2019 H 483 Referred: Judiciary(H)
2/26/2019 Public Hearing Completed (H)
3/05/2019 Executive Session Completed (H)
3/05/2019 Voted Do Pass (H)
3/06/2019 H 860 Reported Do Pass (H) – AYES: 11 NOES: 5 PRESENT: 0
3/06/2019 H 860 Referred: Rules – Administrative Oversight(H)
3/13/2019 Executive Session Completed (H)
3/13/2019 Voted Do Pass (H)
3/14/2019 H 1010 Reported Do Pass (H) – AYES: 5 NOES: 2 PRESENT: 0
4/02/2019 H 1230 Placed on Informal Calendar
4/03/2019 Placed Back on Perfection Calendar
4/03/2019 Taken Up
4/03/2019 Title of Bill – Agreed To
4/03/2019 Perfected with Amendments (H) – HA 1 adopted

This one’s getting a lot of action. Today the Missouri House perfected the bill.

The Committee summary is a piece of work:

[….]
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that this would require plaintiffs to be named in cases where people want to sue to remove religious symbols because such plaintiffs currently hide behind unknown names. We need to protect the rights of Missourians and this would make it more fair for religious people because they are currently being singled out. They say they hide behind anonymous names because they fear retaliation from religious people, but religious people in Missouri are not violent. This would treat claimants the same no matter the viewpoint. This will hopefully reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits. Civic leaders have to endure scrutiny so why shouldn’t plaintiffs.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Billington; Concerned Women for America of Missouri; Don Hinkle, Missouri Baptist Convention; Missouri Family Network; and Keith Carnahan, Maranatha Baptist Church.

OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that people who file these lawsuits often face harassment and threats. This strips judges’ ability to allow plaintiffs to not name themselves. This will put people in danger and it is an attempt to stop only one kind of lawsuit. This would stop people’s ability to bring lawsuits when they think they’ve been wronged. This would also preclude people from exercising their religious rights and filing lawsuits anonymously. The intent is to silence religious minorities, like Atheists.

Testifying against the bill were Ryan Jayne, Freedom From Religion Foundation; James C. McLaurin, Secular Coalition for Missouri; Scott McKellar; American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri; David Rosman; and Eric Wells, American Atheists.

The ultimate in pearl clutching:

“Supporters say that this would require plaintiffs to be named in cases where people want to sue to remove religious symbols because such plaintiffs currently hide behind unknown names…”

Well, yeah, when religious symbols are imposed on others in blatant violation of the Establishment Clause.

“…this would make it more fair for religious people because they are currently being singled out…”

For what? Trying to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else? Just asking. Again, there is the small matter of the Establishment Clause.

“…they fear retaliation from religious people, but religious people in Missouri are not violent.”

Seriously? Someone said that last part with a straight face? It’s just the Agnostics and Atheists then?

Previously:

HB 728: there’s something about that establishment clause (January 30, 2019)

HB 728: there’s something about that establishment clause

30 Wednesday Jan 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

In, not one, but, two places in the 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.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 7.

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.
Source: Const. of 1875, Art. XI, § 11.

Well, unless it involves playground materials.

There’s something about that establishment clause that irritates right wingnuts.

A bill introduced yesterday by Representative Hardy Billington (r):

HB 728
Requires the name of the real party in interest to be named in civil actions involving the separation of church and state unless the party in interest is a minor
Sponsor: Billington, Hardy (152)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 1693H.01I
Last Action: 01/29/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 728
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Wait, don’t right wingnuts keep telling everyone that there is no such thing as “separation of church and state”? Just asking.

The bill text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 728 [pdf]
100TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BILLINGTON. 1693H.01I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To repeal section 507.010, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof one new section relating to the name of the party in interest in certain civil actions.

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

Section A. Section 507.010, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as section 507.010, to read as follows: 507.010.

1. Except as provided in subsection 2 in this section, every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, but an executor, administrator, personal representative, guardian, conservator, trustee of an express trust, a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another, or a party authorized by statute may sue in his own name in such representative capacity without joining with him the party for whose benefit the action is brought; and when a statute so provides, an action for the use or benefit of another shall be brought in the name of the state of Missouri.

2. Except if the party in interest is a minor, in any action involving the separation of church and state, such action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.

[emphasis added]

“…2. Except if the party in interest is a minor, in any action involving the separation of church and state, such action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.”

That new section is quite a carve out.