DAVID ROSMAN: Plenty of shenanigans as the legislature convenes

Wednesday, January 8, 2014 | 6:00 a.m. CST

I have been conducting my annual search of proposed legislation for the upcoming session at the state capitol and am finding little in the way of anything of a truly serious nature.

The reasons for this, at least in my mind, are simple and complicated, covert and downright sneaky.

Before we continue, I suggest that you go to the House and Senate Joint Bill Tracking page for the state of Missouri and try inserting a key word to see if there is anything affecting your industry.

You may find nothing, but if you do find proposed legislation, you will find that most of the proposals have no title. In fact, you will find that the key word lookup may not fit the standards expected for search optimization.

The absence of a title reduces one’s chance of finding bills appropriate to the topic  at hand. There must be legislation concerning farms, but only one bill appeared during my search — HB1057 concerning the exemption of taxes for certain products sold at farmer’s markets.

Type in farming, hogs, pigs, cattle, corn or soybeans, and you will find nothing.

If you search for a medical topic, six proposed bills will turn up — but none with a title. If you search for “abortion,” you'll find three bills. Yet none of them show up under a medical search.

Of 23 bills about “education,” 15 are without a title.

The list continues.

To make the matters more confusing for the citizen wishing to keep up with legislation are the descriptions provided for the search.

For example, SB605  “updates references to higher education statutes that have been previously repealed.” This would appear to be broad-brush legislation about any “previously repealed” statute.

Reading SB605, one finds that it covers more than higher education. The sections listed in this bill include definitions for farming, alternative energy, water supply systems and small businesses, to name a few.

In fact the purpose of this bill is to replace section RSMo §173.215 with §173.1104. It's procedural, intended to clean up language that references repealed statutes. But why are 17 pages of proposed legislation needed to make a simple change?

HB1103, “Alternatives to Abortion Agencies,” introduced by Rep. Chuck Gatschenberger, R-Lake St. Louis, seems to be an example of the right-wing conservative's attempt to create federal legislation through state law.

The summary states: “Specifies that the constitutions and laws of the United States and Missouri must protect the rights of an alternatives-to-abortion agency and its officers to freely engage in activities without interference.”

Two things are wrong here. First, states cannot specify anything of the federal Constitution or federal statutes. The courts of the United States have held that Article VI, Clause 2 of the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”

Additionally, there are no laws, nor are there any proposed laws, in the state of Missouri that would limit businesses of “maternity homes,” “pregnancy resource center(s),” or “an agency or entity that has the primary purpose of providing services or counseling to pregnant women to assist them in carrying their unborn children to term instead of having abortions and to assist the women in caring for their dependent children or placing their children for adoption.”

In fact, I know of no liberals, progressives or Democrats who would seek restrictions on these centers.

Then, Sen. Brian Neives, R-Kirkwood, has introduced yet another bill seeking to nullify federal firearms legislation. As written, “This act declares as invalid all federal laws that infringe on the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 23 of the Missouri Constitution.”

Why waste time with bills that, if passed, would impose court costs on Missouri when such a law is challenged by the federal government?

There will be more of these proposals, and I intend to bring them to light as we plod  through the 2014 legislative session.

David Rosman is an editor, writer, professional speaker and college instructor in communications, ethics, business and politics.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ellis Smith January 8, 2014 | 7:52 a.m.

"Government is like a big baby - an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." - Ronald Reagan (1965)

"The State exists for the sake of Society, not Society for the sake of the State." -Woodrow Wilson (1911)

In connection with the latter quote it appears that more than a few of today's so-called liberals, and progresives, by both word and action, dispute Wilson's contention. For them there is no such thing as government that's too large, too restrictive, too disjointed, too ineffective or too wasteful.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz January 8, 2014 | 9:58 a.m.

I wonder if Rosman will "bring to light" any bad bills that are sponsored by Democrats?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 8, 2014 | 1:10 p.m.

JohnS: Bad Dem bills?

I suspect Dave puts them on a par with the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and Christianity. That such thing.

The thing I really admire about Dave is that he has discussed the Supremacy Clause at least 5 times in the last 6 months, and somehow manages to print both ends of the clause and leave out this part:

"...which shall be made in pursuance thereof;"

Probably because that particular phrase REALLY messes up most of his anti-nullification arguments.

PS: So far, he's resisted any requests to explain that particular phrase in his own words.

PPS: Nullification, of course, happens only when the Executive branch of the gov't allows it. For example, the feds may not allow a 2nd Amendment nullification to go unchallenged, but it's fine and dandy if a State wishes to nullify federal drug laws. Dave, of course, is one of those pickers-and-choosers....the Constitution MUST be followed except when it shouldn't.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 8, 2014 | 1:11 p.m.

It must be a slow editorial-column-day when the main gripe is a bad search engine.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz January 8, 2014 | 2:27 p.m.

I do agree with his complaint about the legislature not making it as easy for citizens to figure out what is going on in Jeff City, but I feel it was merely a springboard to his other issues.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith January 8, 2014 | 2:51 p.m.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Sounds both logical and inviting, especially to one who might be short on abilities but perceives themself to be long on needs. Ultimately there are limits to abilities, but needs can truly exist without limit.

I'd be more interested in hearing a rational defense of the above quotation than 20,000 words on the subject of Nullification, which doesn't mean that I believe Nullification isn't important or that I don't get Michael's point.

John: I'm sure both George (Kennedy) and this columnist will, during the 2014 legislative session, present equal and unbiased criticisms for all bills presented. I also believe in the the Easter Bunny and that nuclear fusion (as opposed to fission) can eventually be safely controlled to produce electricity.

(Report Comment)
Skip Yates January 8, 2014 | 7:38 p.m.

@ELLIS: "I'm sire George (Kennedy) and this columist will....". Do I need remind you of their inability to walk around a mountain clockwise?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith January 9, 2014 | 6:18 a.m.

@ Skip Yates:

No, Skip, you don't need to remind me, and I continue to consider your "walking around the mountain" analogy one of the best items I came across in 2013. In evaluating that statement we need to remember that I've lead a sheltered life. :)

Skip, have you ever awakened in the morning with one single word on your mind? I did this morning, and the word is "diletante." That's far too many syllables for this engineer to cope with.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.