HB425 Real Time Discussion 02/09

[teratos]

Except unfortunately the judiciary decides what is and isn’t constitutional.

Like hell they do.

The framers knew we would have a bunch of sniveling, slithering, syphilitic tyrant wanna-bees in office. They made sure we would not be beholden to their every whim. That is why it says "shall not be infringed" As long as we are armed, WE THE PEOPLE will ultimately decide that.

 

[DC-W]

HB425 is being considered 4th of the bills being worked on today in the Judiciary Committee.

 

[lazarus]

Like hell they do.

The framers knew we would have a bunch of sniveling, slithering, syphilitic tyrant wanna-bees in office. They made sure we would not be beholden to their every whim. That is why it says "shall not be infringed" As long as we are armed, WE THE PEOPLE will ultimately decide that.

Only when and if a sufficient number of people revolt and overthrow the government. Until such time, if discovered, the government will attempt to ensure you suffer the penalties for not following a law. Whether you believe it to be unconstitutional or not. Like it or not.

So unless you can convince enough of your fellow citizens to revolt (which is considered sedition BTW. Any government would of course) the other two choices are comply. Or don’t and face the consequences of not following unconstitutional laws that the government has considered constitutional. Well I guess a third choice is sue and hope at some level the judiciary will agree with you. Sorry, a fourth. Lobby the legislature to change the law.

But arguments of “it’s unconstitutional, I don’t have to follow it” doesn’t change the consequences. And it’s a rather either naive or immature world view to believe you wouldn’t if discovered. I mean sure, maybe you bet you won’t be discovered. I won’t say I’ve ever speed. If I did, I didn’t expect to get caught. Or you don’t care if you suffer the consequences of your actions, because principles. Well or I guess you think you’ll be vindicated in the end (which could still be pretty naive).

It’s the same argument of “natural laws” or “god given rights”. No such thing. whomever has force majeure says what rights you have. Hopefully it’s benevolent enough. In this case it’s our state and federal government and the people electing the majority of government unless or until the system of government is changed.

We claimed all men have the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness when we founded this place. But it didn’t stop us from enslaving black people for over 80 years after the country was founded. Because the government and enough of the right white people had the balance of force of those enslaved and those abolitionists to say black people didn’t have the right of life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Until a bunch of the southern states decided to rebel against the northern states and attack them because the northern states elected someone against slavery and the balance of power might shift to allow those black people rights. And the result was force majeure was established by the people who wanted black people to have at least life and Liberty and some limited pursuit of happiness and that the country was “indivisible” (to be improved with the civil rights act a century later).

Before that, god given or not, black people in America didn’t get to exercise those rights.

There are a number of laws and regulations I think are unconstitutional or illegal. I also know I’ll be punished if caught violating them. And I have neither the no ****s left nor resources to try to change that. Well and also wanting my ability to stay employed and not imprisoned. I guess something could have that balancing act of penalty vs risk of discovery that I’d consider violating it. Probably most people do that. I mean, most people have violated traffic laws at some point, very low penalty, probably not a great risk of discovery any individual time. Bug penalty l, but effectively no risk of discovery, probably a lot of people would consider violating that law if there is a benefit. High risk of discovery and high penalty, probably few would violate that law. If we chopped people’s legs off for speeding, I’d bet there’s be very few people who sped.

Sure, that would be heinous. Something can be immoral, but still “work”.

 

[PowPow]

I given what we heard today, they're holding their cards close. They pushed the fireworks to tomorrow @ 1pm.

 

[dblas]

Given the House committee's vapid treatment of the bill (e.g. Lopez and whatever-her-name-was with the whole "are gun owners law abiding citizens if they break this law after it's enacted?" commentary), this will surely pass. The members of the Senate committee seemed much more involved in pointing out the plain-faced problems in the bill, and therefore seems more likely to push amendments in it.

If it goes without amendment in the House, it will likely differ from the Senate bill, which makes reconciliation likely to take some time, and that makes it more likely that a veto will be able to hold this by a year.

A veto will scuttle the bill and they will have to start over with a new bill next year. Per the State Constitution (Article 1, Section 17(d)), any veto made after the last session in an election cycle (4th year), cannot be over ridden by the legislature after it has been elected and sworn in (i.e. first session of an election cycle).

 

[PowPow]

They'd have to send it to Gov's desk more than 30 days from Sine Die in order to get a veto override chance, correct?

 

[DC-W]

Yes. They have a target of 3/11. Never doubt the ability of the MGA to move stuff fast, but times ticking for two committees and two chambers to pass these with the same language.

None of this means Hogan would veto, but that possibility is foreclosed if this does pass by then.

 

[lazarus]

They'd have to send it to Gov's desk more than 30 days from Sine Die in order to get a veto override chance, correct?

In order to get a veto chance in the regular session.

A special session is very hard to do and I don't think dems will pull that off. However, I HAVE been hearing talk from some of them that they are planning to call one to override vetoes. I guess they realize they've been moving too slow and Hogan is likely to veto a bunch of their stuff they care really deeply about and they don't want to have to spend a bunch of legislative time next session once it is a new legislature having to re-introduce, hold hearings, debate, etc.

From their perspective I can get it. I don't like it, but I can get it.

I hope they don't get what they want.

 

[Bertfish]

Yes. They have a target of 3/11. Never doubt the ability of the MGA to move stuff fast, but times ticking for two committees and two chambers to pass these with the same language.

None of this means Hogan would veto, but that possibility is foreclosed if this does pass by then.

Yes they do have a way of moving things fast when the need arises

 

[rbird7282]

In order to get a veto chance in the regular session.

A special session is very hard to do and I don't think dems will pull that off. However, I HAVE been hearing talk from some of them that they are planning to call one to override vetoes. I guess they realize they've been moving too slow and Hogan is likely to veto a bunch of their stuff they care really deeply about and they don't want to have to spend a bunch of legislative time next session once it is a new legislature having to re-introduce, hold hearings, debate, etc.

From their perspective I can get it. I don't like it, but I can get it.

I hope they don't get what they want.

They can’t call a special session to override a veto this year. See Dblas’s post above in this thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DC-W]

They can’t call a special session to override a veto this year. See Dblas’s post above in this thread.

They can indeed do so. A new legislature cannot act on the work of a previous one, but this would be the current legislature if they were to call a special session before the election.

 

[whistlersmother]

I thought they can't actively ask for campaign funds during a session, including special session.

I suppose the hit on funding would either be small or not important to many in solidly (D) districts.

 

[rbird7282]

They can indeed do so. A new legislature cannot act on the work of a previous one, but this would be the current legislature if they were to call a special session before the election.

My mistake, apologies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DC-W]

I thought they can't actively ask for campaign funds during a session, including special session.

I suppose the hit on funding would either be small or not important to many in solidly (D) districts.

Indeed, they cannot.

My mistake, apologies.

None needed!

 

[sleev-les]

Just sent more emails. Hopefully we get somewhere with this garbage of a bill.

 

[lazarus]

Indeed, they cannot.



None needed!

Correct. But special sessions tend to be fairly short (a couple/few weeks). They'd need to want it REALLY bad to give up on fund raising for even a week or two in an election year since they can't do nada from January till mid-April as it stands.

 

[DC-W]

HB425 voting session live now

 

[Nickberg500]

Said this on the Senate post but I'll add my speculation here since it's more appropriate.

Per usual, Lopez outright lied via omission of facts, and blew off legitimate claims, even saying that people weren't downloading files, and claiming the bill is to target unregistered manufacturers / "the supply chain", already illegal.

The House Republicans finally put up a little bit of opposition. Delegate Conaway (Democrat) actually made good points that seemed to be in favor of our side, yet he still voted along party lines.

The strongest points seemed to be made by Grammer. Cox finally manned up and made good arguments like he's made in past years. Surprised Arikan didn't put up a longer fight.

 

[dblas]

They'd have to send it to Gov's desk more than 30 days from Sine Die in order to get a veto override chance, correct?

Before March 11th, that's 7 days, I don't see that happening.

 

[Bertfish]

Before March 11th, that's 7 days, I don't see that happening.

I'm sure you've seen them bend the timetable to meet their will before. And if they fail this time they'll just be back next session