Wylie, I re-sent the email Charlie sent after our meeting and asked Baker to confirm receipt. No answer yet.Could you call him and let him know we are waiting for his feedback about the language? I believe he is more inclined to respond to you.I spoke with Joe in Gaines's office and he promised he'd work on getting an answer for us.SusanOn Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 3:17 PM Wylie Sawyer <wylieburge@gmail.com> wrote:I'm also with Bill on the trigger. It seems like there's a really good chance we can pass this year without it.I'm fine with changing that line with the caveat that ultimately we should run with whatever language the Speaker's office is most comfortable with.On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Charlie Cooper <charlie.coop47@gmail.com> wrote:Thanks to Susan, Hank, and Bill for responding
I agree with Bill on the trigger. The drafters should automatically take care of correcting the transmission language.
I agree with Hank, who said: What about using "inalienable constitutional rights"? That is clearer. The point is to be as complete as possible in banning constitutional rights for artificial entities.
Charlie
From: Bill Conner [mailto:annapolis13315@gmail.
com ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 12:48 PM
To: Charlie Cooper <charlie.coop47@gmail.com>
Cc: Hank Prensky <hprensky@rcn.com>; Noel Levy <megamapster@verizon.net>; Michael Lore <mwlore@gmail.com>; Wylie Burge <wylieburge@gmail.com>; Susan Ogden <susanfogden@gmail.com>; angad.gmom.hipops@blogger.com; Brown Diamonte <diamonte33@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: RESPOND ASAP - DAR language
Trigger provision: I prefer to hold the trigger provision to lever the legislation out of committee, or if necessary, for potential negotiations between House and Senate versions. If we include the trigger at the outset, we lose this bargaining chip and get nothing for it.Remove "political": The context in the bill is: "...to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that affirms every citizen's individual right to vote, reserves inalienable political rights to natural persons,..." It seems like "political" is the key word here for this legislation and maybe "inalienable" should be removed. I suggest that we consult with a lawyer to see if there are any unexpected implications one way or the other before making a final decision. If there are no legal implications, I would support either wording.
Another Thing: At the end of the bill, it speaks of process and where the bill would be transmitted when passed. Because of the election, some of the players have changed (e.g., Joe Biden will no longer be VP, CVH is now a senator, etc.) At some point, someone needx to clean this up so that it is current.
Bill
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Charlie Cooper <charlie.coop47@gmail.com> wrote:
Here are the notes from the legislative work plan:
1/21/2021 would be the trigger date. 11-year anniversary of Citizens United. Propose trigger to the sponsor. Charlie suggests remove "political" from "inalienable political rights" in the first RESOLVED clause of DAR.
I would also add that we must add in Rhode Island to the list of states we intend to align with (near the bottom of page 2).
Therefore, please vote on the following:
1. Include the trigger provision. I'm not sure why we would offer this after our meeting with Busch. They didn't raise it. I think Wylie should try to reach Jeremy as he has not responded to my e-mail, and I'm not sure he received it. _____ Yes _____ No
2. Remove "p0litical" from "inalienable political rights." _____ Yes _____ No
Charlie Cooper
H: 410-578-8291
C: 410-624-6095
"We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." – Louis Brandeis
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Re: RESPOND ASAP - DAR language
Great, thanks Susan. I'll call tomorrow if we haven't heard anything yet.
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 3:24 PM, Susan Ogden <susanfogden@gmail.com> wrote:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment