Re: RESPOND ASAP - DAR language

All

I want to disagree with Bill's (usually sound) logic:  To "lever the legislation out of committee" implies that we are equal negotiators with a reluctant committee, uncooperative committee chair or oppositional leadership office.  We are not equal to any of those things.  We are not perceived by any entity as having any "bargaining chips" in our arsenal.

Additionally, bringing up the trigger at a late stage of the session to "lever it out of committee" will require a full scale education process to explain to all the members of the Rules and/or EHEA Committees what the trigger is, how it will work and why it is a better choice than just ignoring us for another year, at which time we can come back with a trigger that people understand.

Thirdly, I want to emphasize the original point I made, that of presenting TWO POTENTIAL PATHS to success to overrule Citizens United, and acknowledge that the Congressional approach, while preferable in the face of "runaway fears', is not likely to be possible in the next 2 or 4 or possibly 8 years, and the DUAL PATH Resolution will not require any re-education late in the session.  

Finally, the Resolution WITH the trigger presents the combination of arguments and paths that will likely avoid the possibility of two, different competing proposals in the Resolution text in the House & the Senate.

Cheers,

Hank

Hank@TakomaHomes.com

Mobile Phone: 301-455-4427

On Dec 20, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Bill Conner <annapolis13315@gmail.com> wrote:

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

www.getmoneyoutmd.org  <image001.jpg>

 

"We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." – Louis Brandeis