Category: Political

Categories
Political

Missouri veto day

photo of Eades bridge and St. Louis Arch in black and white

update

Evidently the pod people arrived today, stealing legislator bodies, because both the gun nullification and tax cut bills did not survive a veto override attempt. A half dozen bills did survive including a silly law created specifically for one powerful corporation, Doe Run.

earlier

Today is what’s known as Missouri Veto Day. This is the day when Missourians learn whether our state resumes a normal life or continues being fodder for much head shaking and laughter.

This special session of the Missouri legislature was organized to address several vetoes by Governor Jay Nixon. Among the many bills entering the override sweepstakes, two in particular stand out: HB 253, the latest in Rex Sinquefield’s social experiment to see how one can go about buying a state; and HB 436, otherwise known as That Damn Gun Nullification bill.

HB 253 is the granddaddy of “starve the government” bills. It’s a massive tax cut that benefits corporations and the affluent, while severely restricting desperately needed cash flow. Since Missouri also has a balanced budget amendment enshrined in our Constitution, this bill forces Missouri to dramatically cut education and other necessary services—and Missouri isn’t a particularly generous state to begin with. We’re thinking of changing our motto from “Show me” to “Send help”.

Nixon vetoed the bill, and haven’t we had fun since. You can’t watch news without seeing 10 or more of the Sinquefield funded ads accusing Nixon of various nefarious acts by not supporting the bill. I thought this crap was over after the election, but no, here in Missouri, we like political doggerel fed to us 24×7.

Veto supporters did manage to scrape together enough money to produce one ad, which I saw once. Most of the effort to support the veto came about by Nixon doing the boots-on-the-ground, press the flesh, eat ham at the fair, grass roots effort…and talk to every single reporter from anything even remotely resembling a publication. Heck, he even talked to webloggers.

(I found it humorous when State Rep. Holly Rehder compared what Nixon did in his grass roots campaign to the Nazi propaganda machine. That’s like saying Hitler rose to power by kissing baby cheeks and eating Leberkäse.)

Then there was the visit by Rick Perry, Texas Governor. Missouri’s Chamber of Commerce decided the best way to convince people to call their representatives and demand a veto override was by bringing in a man who ran ads telling businesses they should leave Missouri and go to Texas. Texas, where their lack of regulation is only matched by their spiffy highway system.

Missouri can proudly lay claim to having the only Chamber of Commerce actively trying to send business elsewhere.

There is one good thing about HB 253: no one has doubted the sanity of the people who support it. We may wonder about their fiscal responsibility, empathy to the average person, foresight and intelligence, but HB 253 supporters seem to be sane. The same cannot be said for HB 436 supporters.

There’s all sorts of good reading in HB 436, but my favorite part is the following:

Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

Any Missouri citizen who has been subject to an effort to enforce any of the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms included in subsection 3 of this section shall have a private cause of action for declaratory judgment and for damages against any person or entity attempting such enforcement.

According to this bill, not only can our sheriffs arrest ATF agents for enforcing federal laws, anyone busted in the state based on these same laws can sue the ATF agents. In what reality is this a good idea? Even the NRA isn’t embracing this puppy.

Fortunately, whatever sanity is lacking in Jefferson City can be found elsewhere in the state. Every major law enforcement organization in the state is against this bill, including the rural-reflecting Sheriff’s Association:

The sheriffs’ association – particularly influential in rural Missouri — announced early Friday that the bill “violates the sheriff’s oath of office.”
…

The Sheriffs’ Association says that several provisions also “would serve to hamstring the sheriffs and their deputies from enforcing or participating in all federal, drug, and violent gang task forces currently operating in the state.”

In addition, the association said, “language in the bill would expose all local law enforcement” to legal liability as authorities try to enforce any state laws regarding firearms violations.

Our Attorney General, Chris Koster, wants nothing to do with this bill. He sent a letter to the legislature reminding them of what happens when states attempt to nullify federal law. Of course, if the state implements the law and when it gets thrown out in court, Missouri legislators can just whip up another bill making it illegal for federal courts to operate in the state.

Categories
Documents Government

Additional filings in horse slaughter inspection lawsuit

update: July 9, 2013

The USDA has posted a link to copies of horse slaughter inspection requests.
—-

The Judge evidently conferred with plaintiffs and from what I can decipher from court documents, the USDA agreed to hold on inspections until some form of resolution of the case (document20). According to the schedule set out by the judge, and if I understand the documents correctly, this delays inspections until at least September.

This is born out by a brief update the HSUS has posted to its press release on the lawsuit:

JULY 3 UPDATE: Horse slaughter inspections in the U.S. are delayed for weeks due to The HSUS and Front Range Equine Rescue’s legal action.

The case history docket page has been updated with links to the latest filings.

Previous post related to this lawsuit.

Categories
Documents Environment Government Legal, Laws, and Regs

Sackett v EPA – Administration Record Index Documents

I received a CD with Administrative Record documents I requested via FOIA from the EPA. These documents were submitted by the EPA based on a request from the Sacketts in the Sackett et al vs. Johnson et al court case, otherwise known as the Sackett vs. the EPA. This case received a very narrow decision in the Supreme Court last year. I’ve retrieved most of the PACER court documents and am planning on posting these this week.

Thankfully, the Administrative Record documents came with a spreadsheet index, which I converted to a basic HTML table (Sacketts vs. the EPA Administrative Record Documents). Much simpler to post online when you don’t have to individually link the large titled PDFs.

An interesting thing about the Administrative Record documents is the photos. I’m not a geologist, but I found the photos of the Sacketts’ lot to be rather convincing that yes, they were filling in a wetlands. In addition, the Sacketts’ neighbors were the ones to file a complaint because, evidently, the work the Sacketts were doing was causing water to back up into the neighbor’s place.

The Sacketts claimed ignorance of the need to see if they required a Clear Water Act permit before filling in their property. I find this less than credible when you consider that the Sacketts run an excavation and construction business. In addition, there’s also the fact that the previous owners were aware the land was designated a wetlands.

Interesting what you can find with a simple FOIA request. Which, by the way, the EPA responded to quickly and efficiently.

I’ll have more on this case at a different web site (since this one is about document access) when I have all the pieces (and I have the extra time). In the mean time, feel free to explore the Admin Record documents, and the court documents later in the week. You can definitely find out more about the case just by searching on “Sackett vs EPA” online.

Categories
Documents Government

Trashing the EPA

I’m angry about the Republican intransigence regarding a vote for Gina McCarthy.

The Republican senators state that there’s a ‘lack of transparency’ to the actions of the EPA. They use the same old tired excuse that the previous head, Lisa Jackson, used an email alias. They ignore the fact that Jackson’s formal email address gets over a million emails a year, and is thus entirely useless when it comes to necessary communication. They also ignore the assurances, given again and again, that Jackson’s alias address is used when fulfilling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

As for those FOIA mandates, no agency is perfect, but the EPA is most decidedly trying.

Categories
Environment Government Legal, Laws, and Regs

Sackett vs EPA

I received a CD with Administrative Record documents I requested via FOIA from the EPA. These documents were submitted by the EPA based on a request from the Sacketts in the Sackett et al vs. Johnson et al court case, otherwise known as the Sackett vs. the EPA. This case received a very narrow decision in the Supreme Court last year. I’ve retrieved most of the PACER court documents and am planning on posting these this week.

Thankfully, the Administrative Record documents came with a spreadsheet index, which I converted to a basic HTML table (Sacketts vs. the EPA Administrative Record Documents). Much simpler to post online when you don’t have to individually link the large titled PDFs.

An interesting thing about the Administrative Record documents is the photos. I’m not a geologist, but I found the photos of the Sacketts’ lot to be rather convincing that yes, they were filling in a wetlands. In addition, the Sacketts’ neighbors were the ones to file a complaint because, evidently, the work the Sacketts were doing was causing water to back up into the neighbor’s place.

The Sacketts claimed ignorance of the need to see if they required a Clear Water Act permit before filling in their property. I find this less than credible when you consider that the Sacketts run an excavation and construction business. In addition, there’s also the fact that the previous owners were aware the land was designated a wetlands.

Interesting what you can find with a simple FOIA request. Which, by the way, the EPA responded to quickly and efficiently.

I’ll have more on this case at a different web site (since this one is about document access) when I have all the pieces (and I have the extra time). In the mean time, feel free to explore the Admin Record documents, and the court documents later in the week. You can definitely find out more about the case just by searching on “Sackett vs EPA” online.