Tag Archives: tenther drivel

SB 715: they’ll always have their tenther drivel

22 Wednesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Eric Burlison (r) [2016 file photo].

A bill, introduced in the Missouri Senate:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL NO. 715 [pdf]
100TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR BURLISON.

Pre-filed December 1, 2019, and ordered printed.

ADRIANE D. CROUSE, Secretary. 3039S.01I

AN ACT

To repeal section 536.037, RSMo, and to enact in lieu thereof two new sections relating to state enforcement of federal regulations.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Section 536.037, RSMo, is repealed and two new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 1.360 and 536.037, to read as follows:

1.360. 1. To ensure that the powers reserved to this state under Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States are protected and to ensure that the federal government does not encroach on this state’s status as an independent sovereign in a federal system of governance, all federal rules and regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency shall be subject to approval by the general assembly as set forth in subsection 5 of this section.

2. No department or agency of this state shall enforce any rule or regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency within the borders of this state unless the enforcement of such regulation is approved by the general assembly as set forth in subsection 5 of this section.

3. No rule or regulation promulgated on or after August 28, 2020, by any department or agency of this state in conjunction with the enforcement of any rule or regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency shall be enforceable unless such rule or regulation is approved by the general assembly as set forth in subsection 5 of this section.

4. Any existing rule or regulation promulgated before August 28, 2020, by any department or agency of this state in conjunction with the enforcement of any rule or regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that is in force and effect after August 28, 2020, shall be subject to review by the committee on administrative rules, established under section 536.037. The committee shall determine whether such rule or regulation shall continue to be enforced and shall make a recommendation thereof to the general assembly. The general assembly shall review all such rules and regulations referred to it by the committee and shall approve or disapprove of the continued enforcement of such rules or regulations. No such rule or regulation that the general assembly disapproves shall be enforceable unless and until the rule or regulation is again referred to the general assembly by the committee of administrative rules and then approved by the general assembly. Any such rule or regulation that the general assembly approves shall continue to be enforced unless such rule or regulation is repealed by the agency or department.

5. No rule or regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or any rule or regulation promulgated by any department or agency of this state in conjunction with the enforcement of any rule or regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, shall be effective in the state until the general assembly, within the first sixty calendar days of the regular session immediately following the promulgation of such rule or regulation, by concurrent resolution, approves such rule or regulation.

[….]

4. The committee shall review all rules and regulations promulgated before August 28, 2020, by any federal agency or by any state agency in conjunction with the enforcement of any rule or regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency that are in force and effect on August 28, 2020, and determine whether such rules and regulations should continue to be enforced under section 1.360. In its review the committee may take such action as it deems necessary, which may include holding hearings. The committee shall refer all reviewed rules and regulations to the general assembly with a recommendation of whether such rule or regulation should be enforceable. Any citizen of this state may request the review of any specific rule or regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the committee shall review such rule or regulation.

[….]

So, you like clean air and water, eh?

HB 1039: “We’re having a contest!”

26 Tuesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

For the most over the top gun fetish bill introduced this session in the Missouri House.

A bill, introduced on February 21st by Representative Jered Taylor (r):

HB 1039
Establishes the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which creates additional protections to the right to bear arms
Sponsor: Taylor, Jered (139)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2160H.01I
Last Action: 02/25/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1039
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

In the bill [pdf]:

…1.420. The following federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations shall be considered infringements on the people’s right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States and Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of Missouri, within the borders of this state…

Uh, we see your tenther drivel and raise you a supremacy clause:

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding…

What’s worse? The sponsor actually believes everything in the bill, or he knows it’s bullshit and he filed it anyway?

Previously:

HB 1052: Matchlock or flintlock? (February 25, 2019)

HB 786: tenther drivel…again

01 Friday Feb 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

There is the small matter of the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution, in case no one in the Missouri General Assembly has bothered to read it:

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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding….

And, uh, the United States Supreme Court gets to decide what is constitutional, not the Missouri General Assembly:

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

….It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.

If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply….

In the Missouri General Assembly, three years ago:

HB 2196: blah, blah, guns, tenther drivel, blah, recycle, blah, stir…

The sponsor in 2016 was Representative Jeff Pogue (r).

Five years ago:

HB 1556: because we can never have too many tenther gun bills in the Missouri House

Six years ago:

HB 162: Tenthers and guns, what could go wrong?

Nine years ago:

HJR 88: a veritable thesaurus of tenther drivel

A bill introduced yesterday by Representative Jeff Pogue (r):

HB 786
Establishes the “Second Amendment Preservation Act”
Sponsor: Pogue, Jeff (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 1046H.01I
Last Action: 01/31/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 786
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Some of the (familiar) bill language [pdf]:

…(3) The limitation of the federal government’s power is affirmed under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people of the several states to the federal government, and all power not delegated to the federal government in the United States Constitution is reserved to the states respectively or to the people themselves;

(4) If the federal government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the United States Constitution, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…

Blah, blah, blah, tenther drivel, gun stuff, blah, blah, blah, stir…

Willful ignorance of two centuries of American history gets us to where we are today.

SB 466: maybe if we just ignore him he’ll stop filing lunatic fringe right wingnut alternate universe successionist fantasy bills

24 Friday Feb 2017

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

No, that doesn’t work now. Everyone else already ignores him.

Oh, and tenther drivel, too.

SB 466 Adopts the Prosperity States Compact
[….]
SB 466 – This act adopts the Prosperity States Compact, an interstate agreement for the creation of political subdivisions (“districts”) which are exempt from state and federal laws not otherwise made continually applicable by the Prosperity States Compact or by federal supremacy. The Compact also places certain limits to districts’ authority to govern and raise public funds, in addition to those limitations that are ordinarily placed on political subdivisions, including a ban on the taxation of district residents.

Districts are municipal corporations with the power to form contracts and be party to lawsuits. Districts are led by a board of seven administrators who serve four year terms. A process is created for the board to create and administer district bylaws, ordinances, policies, and procedures. All of the board’s meetings and records are open.

The authority of the district government is limited to certain law enforcement activities, the furnishing of transportation, utility, and transmission infrastructure, the operation of a municipal court, the borrowing of money in accordance with other limitations placed upon borrowing by this act, the power to accept certain gifts of real and personal property, and other incidental activities that are necessary for government as determined by the board. The district government is prohibited from exercising any government function of taxation, eminent domain, civil property forfeiture unless the forfeiture is based in a criminal violation and the forfeiting party has been convicted of that violation, establishing or enforcing any monopoly or cartel, accepting certain gifts, delegating all or any portion of its authority in any manner other than which it is permitted to do so by the act, or permitting any other unit of government to exercise authority within the district, except as permitted to do so by the act.
[….]

You’ve just got to love some of the particulars:

[….]
(c) Governing Authority. The governing authority of every Prosperity District is strictly limited to the following powers, which shall be exclusive of the exercise of the same or like powers by any other governmental unit within the district’s boundaries, as they exist from time to time, and no other governmental unit shall within such boundaries exercise the same or like powers as are granted to the district under this subsection, except as expressly contemplated in this Compact:
(1) police power consisting solely of: (i) enforcing the Malum in Se Criminal Law, Common Law and Regulation adopted in its formation petition as contemplated…
[….]

By my reading of the bill spitting on sidewalks would be out.

[….]
Section 7. Preservation of Person Status for Artificial Persons. A corporation, trust, company, association, organization or other non-natural person entity (“artificial person”) that enjoys or is capable of enjoying certain duties, rights and powers of a natural person under law existing outside of the boundaries of a Prosperity District, such as the right to sue or be sued, contract or own property in its own name, shall be recognized as enjoying the corresponding duties, rights and powers, if any, of a natural person within the boundaries of a Prosperity District upon giving notice in such form and with such content as may be specified in the district’s bylaws to the managing board of the district of its intent to conduct operations, do business or establish a place of business or domicile within the Prosperity District.
[….]

Can you abort an artificial person? Just asking.

Read the whole thing. It’ll be worth the waste of your time, if only for the mocking laughter.

Ed Emery (r) sponsored this bill. As if it could be anyone else.