Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This is hysterical...

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons.

This week... Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

Fun times... fun times...

HA! Now thats comedy.

That might actually be a decent idea. Have a law where if any member of any legislative body proposes a law/ordinance that is ruled unconstitutional to have some sort of legal action taken against them.

It would serve to give a disincentive to propose laws which infringe on the rights of citizens.

I like the concept anyway.

Ugh, ITs just introducing a bill, nothing to get riled up about.

Missouri law code is generally something suited for amusement... if you don't have to abide by it.

It's a foolish law for a foolish populace that have allowed their control over their lawmakers to get to this point. To whit,

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would serve to give a disincentive to propose laws which infringe on the rights of citizens.

There already is a powerful disincentive to legislate poorly, which happens every 4 years. The fact that the people use this so poorly means they deserve every bit of what they get - to wit, nearly 40% of the populace voted for Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin. They clearly have no problem with idiocy and stupidity with their tax dollars, who are we to argue otherwise?

 Ouze wrote:
It's a foolish law for a foolish populace that have allowed their control over their lawmakers to get to this point. To whit,

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would serve to give a disincentive to propose laws which infringe on the rights of citizens.

There already is a powerful disincentive to legislate poorly, which happens every 4 years. The fact that the people use this so poorly means they deserve every bit of what they get - to wit, nearly 40% of the populace voted for Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin. They clearly have no problem with idiocy and stupidity with their tax dollars, who are we to argue otherwise?

Um... what are you really saying Mr. Ouze?

Don't get worked up... neither bill has a chance to pass. Pandering... nothing more.

 Ouze wrote:
It's a foolish law for a foolish populace that have allowed their control over their lawmakers to get to this point. To whit,

 Grey Templar wrote:
It would serve to give a disincentive to propose laws which infringe on the rights of citizens.

There already is a powerful disincentive to legislate poorly, which happens every 4 years. The fact that the people use this so poorly means they deserve every bit of what they get - to wit, nearly 40% of the populace voted for Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin. They clearly have no problem with idiocy and stupidity with their tax dollars, who are we to argue otherwise?

True, but such legislation wouldn't hurt.

It never hurts to have some layers of protection, especially since politics is at the point where if you have been around long enough you will usually win. Or its just a case of playing musical chairs.

 whembly wrote:
Don't get worked up... neither bill has a chance to pass. Pandering... nothing more.

Then why did you post it, FFS?

whembly wrote:This is hysterical...

Last week, Missouri Democrats introduced a bill that would ban semi-automatic rifles and give law-abiding gun owners 90 days to turn in their firearms to law enforcement or become felons.

This week... Rep. Mike Leara (R-St. Louis) introduced legislation Monday that would make “any member of the general assembly who proposes legislation that further restricts an individual’s right to bear arms” guilty of a class D felony.

Fun times... fun times...

So one side of the aisle introduces something absolutely ridiculous, and the other side attempts to collapse the entire legislative process in response?

Oh Missouri, you'll always be the 'show me' state.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Don't get worked up... neither bill has a chance to pass. Pandering... nothing more.

Then why did you post it, FFS?

Did you not read the title?

Fun times?

He posted it because it was funny. Not because it was serious.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Don't get worked up... neither bill has a chance to pass. Pandering... nothing more.

Then why did you post it, FFS?

Because I thought it was HYSTERICAL!

Jeez you guys are tough sometimes... how 'bout this then...
Best use of laser pointers:


So full of nope (notice his right foot):


Fast & Furious in real live:


Better?

And I thought this thread was actually going to be about how Mississippi finally ratified the 13th Amendement but then I realized the title said Missouri.

I was thinking the same thing LordofHats.

 Grey Templar wrote:
True, but such legislation wouldn't hurt.

It never hurts to have some layers of protection, especially since politics is at the point where if you have been around long enough you will usually win. Or its just a case of playing musical chairs.

Thing is, in order to know if a proposed law is constitutional it has to pass judicial review. If any law or part of a law fails that then it ain't law no more.

So once that's done, going back to the guy who originally proposed the law, and perhaps the 50%+1 who agreed with him in passing the thing and punishing them just seems absurd.

And then consider the nonsense that a law might be ruled unconstitutional in a close ruling, these things are rarely cut and dry clearly unconstitutional. What happens to the judges on the minority opinion, are they also liable for the law?

Details would have to be hashed out of course. And other changes might have to be implimented as well.

Such as the following,


There could be a rotating panel of judges drawn at random from the pool of justices that are currently serving in the area in question(be it local or state) that review laws as they are put on the books. If a law is found to be unconstitutional it is scrapped.

This would be independent of any cases(where laws would normally be found to be constitutional or not)

Laws could still be ruled unconstitutional in the normal procedure of a case.

And the Supreme Court could overturn the panel's decision(Supreme Court justices would not be able to be on the panel)


Yeah, it would add another layer of complexity that would probably just slow down the machine even more. But it might make lawmakers be more mindful of how they write a bill. Not only would the bill have the potential of being struck down but they would also have legal charges brought against them for passing unconstitutional laws.

More accountibility is not a bad thing. Especially since there really isn't much actually, especially either right after an election or when an official is in their last term.

The bill in response to the first is very specific in its purpose, I feel that it is more to dissuade that kind of irrational mess in the future, not necessarily a future policy. But if it were be implemented, I would not oppose it as it is further insulation against wacky policies like the one that was initially proposed.

As for the original bill, the two introduced it are absolute fools. Confiscation or confiscation + prison, gee thanks for a real choice in the matter. Luckily it will never reach Nixon's desk (or past committee). Something that facially unconstitutional is not acceptable.

How about I get left the hell alone? I know that's hard for people with "regulate/control everything" on the brain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:


There already is a powerful disincentive to legislate poorly, which happens every 4 years.

Funny you say that when 95% of incumbents get re-elected. Voters and people in general are woefully under-informed and politics is down to who is more marketable, not necessarily competent.

*sigh* ....and i thought we were starting to turn a corner when we shot down Akin...

 Grey Templar wrote:
There could be a rotating panel of judges drawn at random from the pool of justices that are currently serving in the area in question(be it local or state) that review laws as they are put on the books. If a law is found to be unconstitutional it is scrapped.

So what you're saying is every law as a matter of course is constitutionally checked. Not just if someone brings a suit, but as a matter of course.

So if there was an overhaul of the governmental purchasing process to require internet listing and an expansion of the minimum contract levels before tendering is required... you'd want a bench of judges to sit down and review that?

Yeah, it would add another layer of complexity that would probably just slow down the machine even more. But it might make lawmakers be more mindful of how they write a bill. Not only would the bill have the potential of being struck down but they would also have legal charges brought against them for passing unconstitutional laws.

More accountibility is not a bad thing. Especially since there really isn't much actually, especially either right after an election or when an official is in their last term.

The penalty is that the political capital they spend getting a law passed is no longer in existance. That's all the incentive you'll ever need, because no-one goes in to politics and invests their time in what is, frankly, a gakky job, in order to have their bills declared invalid.

Seriously, you get a bill that divides the constitutional lawyers of the country and causes 12 months of debate, that in the end is decided by the Supreme Court 5-4 ruling it unconstitutional... and then you think it's a good idea to have jail time for the guy who put up the bill?

It's completely nuts.

 sebster wrote:

because no-one goes in to politics and invests their time in what is, frankly, a gakky job, in order to have their bills declared invalid.

Really? Most of them don't care.

They're made in the shade after their done and wielding considerable influence in the process, I wish my job was the gakky.

I wouldn't say its nuts so much as a massive waste of time and resources. There are better things to be doing than being vindictive douchebags screaming "I told you so" at the top of our lungs while we shove some guy in a cell.

 sebster wrote:

Seriously, you get a bill that divides the constitutional lawyers of the country and causes 12 months of debate, that in the end is decided by the Supreme Court 5-4 ruling it unconstitutional... and then you think it's a good idea to have jail time for the guy who put up the bill?

It's completely nuts.

I never said jail time would be in order. I just like the idea of there being consequences for creating an unconstitutional bill, besides the non-threat of not getting re-elected. There has to be a way for that to work.

Just because the majority of people don't give two figs about what their local politicians have done on that one day a year where it actually matters doesn't mean nothing should be done about it.

What about voters who approve unconstitutional referendums?

What shall we do about them?

 d-usa wrote:
What about voters who approve unconstitutional referendums?

What shall we do about them?

Why, we tar and feather them of course.

 LordofHats wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
What about voters who approve unconstitutional referendums?

What shall we do about them?

Why, we tar and feather them of course.

I don't think the constitution prevents tar and feathers, so the plan is a good one.

Yep. Now no one is ever going to say we're not fashionable. Lets make sure our feathers are coordinated before we start. I'm thinking some cardinal and raven feathers with just a pinch of blue jay.

 Stormrider wrote:
Really? Most of them don't care.

Nope, it ain't like that, not even a little.

We're talking about people that are smart enough, and certainly well connected enough to command very healthy salaries do a wide variety of pretty undemanding jobs. Just being a lobbyist commands many times the pay, and in most cases isn't even a full time job. Let alone the industry positions that are available.

You may not like the things politicians are trying to do, but the simple fact remains in most cases they're there because at least they believe in those things.

The idea that a person would spend their time in office putting together legislation, see it get trashed by a court and think 'don't care, still got paid' is just crazypants. People don't work that way. If you spent 3 months of your working life on a project, and at the end someone just turned it off like you'd done nothing at all, wouldn't it bother you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I never said jail time would be in order. I just like the idea of there being consequences for creating an unconstitutional bill, besides the non-threat of not getting re-elected. There has to be a way for that to work.

They're not in office for all the pleasure of holding press conferences and insufferable cocktail parties with lobbyists, aparatchiks and the usual crowd that somehow know whenever there's a social function. They're actually there because they want to get stuff done.



It just... it just seems like people have comletely lost track in their heads of how people actually work. I mean, you go and do work and try, and when whatever you've tried amounts to nothing it pisses you off. That is the case for everyone. Just think about how your brain functions, and realise that's true for almost everyone else as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
What about voters who approve unconstitutional referendums?

What shall we do about them?

What about a lower court who says a law is constitutional, only for a higher court to find it unconstitutional?

And what happens when we penalise a lawmaker for passing an unconstitutional law... only for a court years later to find a very similar law constitutional?

This whole thing is built around the idea that what is and what isn't constitutional is completely cut and dry and obvious. It's just isn't.

If I were a member of the assembly I would bring a bill to make it a criminal offence to bring a bill that makes it a criminal offence to bring a bill that criminalises bringing a bill.

Then I would arrest everyone.

And grant yourself sweeping powers using the powers of the Executie branch!

In Missouri's defense, it has the Arch in St. Louis, which is epic cool. I was at an air show where fighters boomed through the Arch. Neat!
I was also in a cave where the James/Younger gang would hide out. Also cool.