There is life after the death penalty – for several of my bills.
Today, the following took place:
The Lilly Ledbetter fair pay bill got a favorable report from the Health and Government Operations Committee.
The Voter’s Rights Protection Act got a favorable vote from the Election Law Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee.
My legislation to prevent a judge from considering a person’s disability in a custody proceeding, unless there is a specific finding that the disability causes a condition which is detrimental to the best interest of the child, got a favorable report from the Judiciary Committee.
The bill to prevent the police from infiltrating organizations that are exercising their First Amendment rights when protesting government policy passed the House unanimously. I was the floor leader for this legislation.
Finally, my proposal to allow an inmate to present to a judge newly discovered evidence of innocence got preliminary approval from the full House.
Much still to be done to get these bills enacted, but as my campaign slogan once said:
Hard work, real results.
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Core values
For me, these are core values.
My life’s work is in a legislative body, where the majority rules. If you can count to 71 in the House and 24 in the Senate, you win.
But the First Amendment provides that the majority does not prevail when fundamental rights are violated.
The constitutional protection of freedom of the press does not prohibit a court from requiring a reporter to reveal a source, the Supreme Court has ruled. Nonetheless, the legislature can provide such protections by statute.
Similarly, the Court has held that the government can burden an individual’s exercise of his or her religious beliefs if there is a rational basis for a law of general applicability. Here as well, the legislature can enact additional protections, and the Congress has.
What prompts this discussion of constitutional law?
After the hearing concluded on my reporter’s shield bill yesterday, I learned that my religious accommodation bill had failed, 8-2.
Fundamentally, we were unable to persuade a majority of the members of the subcommittee that the exercise of religious belief – whether it’s a Shabbat elevator or a Hindu wall covering, is worthy of special consideration.
My life’s work is in a legislative body, where the majority rules. If you can count to 71 in the House and 24 in the Senate, you win.
But the First Amendment provides that the majority does not prevail when fundamental rights are violated.
The constitutional protection of freedom of the press does not prohibit a court from requiring a reporter to reveal a source, the Supreme Court has ruled. Nonetheless, the legislature can provide such protections by statute.
Similarly, the Court has held that the government can burden an individual’s exercise of his or her religious beliefs if there is a rational basis for a law of general applicability. Here as well, the legislature can enact additional protections, and the Congress has.
What prompts this discussion of constitutional law?
After the hearing concluded on my reporter’s shield bill yesterday, I learned that my religious accommodation bill had failed, 8-2.
Fundamentally, we were unable to persuade a majority of the members of the subcommittee that the exercise of religious belief – whether it’s a Shabbat elevator or a Hindu wall covering, is worthy of special consideration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)