|
|
|
Author: |
Dan McGrath |
Created: |
3/10/2008 |
 |
|
Dan is a Minneapolis resident. Living in the heart of the beast, he brings an urban perspective to Minnesota conservatism. |
|
Arizona Illegal Immigration Enforcement Law Poorly Understood |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
4/27/2010
|
|
|
 There has been a tremendous amount of controversy about the law recently passed in Arizona that requires police to check a person’s immigration status if they are already in “lawful contact” with the officer, and the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that the individual is not a US citizen. That enforcing our laws has moved from the realm of common sense into the realm of controversy is remarkable.
Riots and vandalism followed the signing of the new law in Arizona, though recent polling shows that 70% of Arizona residents are supportive of the measure. Nationwide, 60% support it and 68% of Minnesotans are in favor.
In Minneapolis, SEIU and a number of pro-illegal-immigration groups gathered outside the Minneapolis Hilton to protest the Minnesota Family Council’s annual fundraising dinner. The event featured Governor Pawlenty and keynote speaker, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Immigration wasn’t on the agenda inside the event, and Minnesota has no law like Arizona’s, but that didn’t seem to matter to the gathering of protestors seeking a high-profile target for their ire over Arizona’s new law.
Speakers at the small protest rally made claims about the impact of the bill that, putting it nicely were erroneous. One speaker claimed (in English and then repeated in Spanish) that now, wherever anyone went, even if they were wearing trunks, swimming in a pool or lake, if a police officer asked for their “papers,” and they didn’t have them on their person, they would go straight to jail. This claim was met by muttering and displeasure from the crowd, but it’s simply not true. Arizona’s law requires that a person already be detained by the police for some reason, and it requires that the officer have reason to believe the individual is not legally present in the US. In addition, the law expressly forbids using a person’s appearance as the sole criteria for “reasonable suspicion” as defined in the law.
Although Minnesota has no law like Arizona’s there have been attempts to bring similar legislation in recent years. The Minnesota legislature mustered a bill similar to the Arizona law in 2009, but it was not passed. The year before that, a bill was introduced that would prohibit so-called “sanctuary city” policies, like Minneapolis and St. Paul have enacted. These sanctuary ordinances are essentially the polar opposite of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. They expressly forbid law enforcement officers, under any circumstances, to inquire about a person’s immigration status.
Illegal immigration in Minnesota hasn’t reached the devastating proportions Arizona is experiencing, but it is a costly problem. A 2005 report to Governor Pawlenty estimated that illegal aliens are costing Minnesota Taxpayers between $180 and $345 million per year. In some small towns, hospital emergency rooms and public schools have been overwhelmed by a large influx of illegal aliens those communities are not equipped to cope with, forcing some emergency rooms to close, and taxpayers are funding some health care services to illegal aliens.
According to WCCO Channel 4 News, half of the illegal aliens present in the state are from African countries; 27% from Asia and 10% from Latin/Central America (leaving about 13% from all other parts of the world).
Immigration is a good thing. Our nation was built on immigration, but what’s happening in Arizona and other parts of the country isn’t immigration. It’s more like an invasion. Drug dealers, gangsters, racist radicals and human traffickers are crossing the border with impunity and flaunting the laws of the United States.
Some illegal aliens are just coming here to look for work and try to make a better life for themselves, which is what America is all about. We live in the land of opportunity, but the process has to be orderly and measured. Our unprotected, wide-open borders and lack of immigration enforcement allows a dangerous criminal element into our neighborhoods along with those looking for peaceful prosperity. Only by securing the border, and rigorously enforcing our immigration laws can we ensure that we are admitting honest people who will participate in American civic life and in bettering themselves, make the United States a better place, while keeping out those who would threaten our prosperity and security.
There is a process to legally enter the United States, and become a citizen. We should welcome those immigrants who respect our laws and embrace them as our brethren. They are fellow Americans and it’ll be rare to find a natural-born citizen who is more appreciative and protective of the liberty and opportunity America offers. Those of us who were born here often too easily take these things for granted, but the legal immigrant will live the American Dream to the fullest. The illegal alien who does not respect our nation, our borders or our laws, however contributes little, if anything and is often a drain on our resources.
Those who advocate for dismantling immigration enforcement try to blur or eradicate the line between legal and illegal immigrants, but the distinction couldn’t be clearer.
After Arizona enacted it’s new immigration enforcement policy, the government of Mexico strongly objected, threatening to cut off trade with the state. Representatives of Mexico called the law “racist,” and they want the US to drop our guard around the borders, but is there reciprocity?
The penalties for illegal immigration to Mexico are severe. First-time offenders are fined and deported (Mexico annually deports more illegal aliens from within it’s borders than the United States does) and may be imprisoned for 2 years. A person caught unlawfully present in Mexico a second time is subject to imprisonment for 10 years. Visa violations are punishable by 6 years in a Mexican prison.
Even legal immigrants to Mexico are second-class residents. Non-citizen residents are not allowed to own land in large swaths of Mexico and becoming a citizen is difficult. The citizen selection process in Mexico is discriminatory as well. Central Americans from south of Mexico’s border who live in Mexico for two years are eligible to apply for citizenship. A person from north of the border (ie: the United States) must live in Mexico for 5 years via a complex and costly visa process that’s always at the pleasure of Mexican immigration officials. Further, anyone desiring Mexican citizenship must pass a Mexican civics and history exam and a Spanish competency test. That’s right. They require immigrants to learn the laws, language and culture of the country they are seeking citizenship in. How novel.
Despite having some of the toughest immigration laws on the planet, the president of Mexico had the hypocritical audacity to howl when a state in the US dared to enforce our nation’s much less stringent immigration laws to deal with an out of control rise in violent crime stemming from illegal aliens.
The most fundamental function of any national government is preserving and protecting it’s borders. Our federal government has failed in that task so spectacularly that the states are forced to deal with illegal immigration on their own and Minnesota’s own policies on illegal immigration are sorely lacking, but not for a lack of effort by some lawmakers.
In 2008, a bill was introduced to prohibit cities from enacting the so-called “sanctuary city” policies that tie the hands of local law enforcement officers, forbidding them to investigate immigration violations. The bill was defeated by the DFL-majority in the legislature. Also in 2008, a bill was proposed that would require prison officials to report to ICE when an inmate’s citizenship status could not be confirmed. Again, the DFL majority shot the bill down.
Our situation isn’t as dire, but Minnesota could learn a lesson from Arizona. It’s time to untie the hands of our law enforcement officers and let them do their jobs. For a city in the great state of Minnesota to literally offer sanctuary for law-breakers and fugitives should not be tolerated.
|
 |
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
Margaret Anderson-Kelliher Endorsed by DFL |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
4/26/2010
|
|
|
 The Minnesota Democrat Farmer Labor Party endorsed state House speaker Margaret Anderson-Kelliher at their convention over the weekend. She edged out Minneapolis Mayor R. T. Rybak after 6 ballots.
The DFL had a choice between radicals this year. No viable moderate or conservative candidate presented. How will ultra-liberal Kelliher be received outside the Twin Cities? Probably not any better than her policy decisions are received by her own urban constituents, which is to say, not well.
Minnesota Majority polled Kelliher’s Minneapolis district in 2008 on ten of the House Speakers’ votes from the 2007-2008 legislative session and found that the majority of her own constituents disagreed with Kelliher on 9 of 10 of her votes. It seems that Kelliher may actually be too liberal even for her own urban Minneapolis district!
Unfortunately, the majority of voters don’t pay very close attention to the actions of their state legislators, so Kelliher’s constituents are probably not even aware that they are in disagreement with their representative 90% of the time. That will change now that her profile has been raised. Her radical voting record will receive much more scrutiny as she campaigns to be Minnesota’s next governor.
Minnesota Majority’s legislative scorecard gives Kelliher a perfect zero, not just in the past session, but for her entire career. She has consistently voted against anything remotely traditional. To score a lifetime zero requires an unwavering commitment to undoing the traditional foundations of our society. She’s voted against protecting the genetic privacy of our citizens, against making health insurance more competitive and inexpensive, against installing pornography filters in our public libraries on computers children have access to, against stopping government grants of tax dollars to political organizations, against prohibiting gender-selection abortions, against requiring identification to vote, against requiring schools to give notice to parents before dispensing oral contraceptives to their minor children, against requiring prisons to report inmates with unknown immigration status to federal immigration officials, against freezing property taxes for seniors on a fixed retirement income, and she voted for billions of dollars in tax increases (on sales, income, property, gasoline and more), for paying for abortions with our tax dollars, and she voted to undermine health savings accounts.
Margaret Anderson-Kelliher may be the most radical liberal Minnesota’s DFL has ever endorsed, but she’s not guaranteed a spot on the November ballot. Matt Entenza, Mark Dayton and Ramsey County Attorney Sue Gaertner have indicated that they will ignore the endorsement process and take their case for nomination straight to the voters in a September primary. The rank and file Democrat voters will have to decide which of these candidates best represents their priorities for Minnesota.
The Republican endorsement convention begins on Thursday, April 29th.
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
ACORN Carries On Despite Reports of its Demise |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
4/5/2010
|
|
|
 ACORN Wounded and Downsized but Still Mostly Intact Under Same Management, New Branding
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has come under heavy fire in recent years over allegations of corruption, and involvement in fraudulent voter registrations in several states. ACORN’s troubles peaked when undercover video showing ACORN employees offering (illegal) tax advice to activists James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles posing as a pimp and prostitute.
In what was mostly a PR move, Congress voted to cut off funding to ACORN. Not long after, a federal judge issued a bizarre and convoluted ruling that decreed cutting off ACORN’s stream of federal tax dollars was unconstitutional. Despite the federal government’s apparent obligation to funnel tax dollars to the non-government organization, other funding sources for ACORN declined in the wake of the video scandal. Several state legislatures cut ties and funding to ACORN and private contributions probably also declined.
The national ACORN organization officially disbanded on April 1st, citing declining revenues. State affiliate organizations have been disbanding or changing their names, but most continue to operate. ACORN president Bertha Lewis sold ACORN’s assets, including their database of dues-paying members to a newly formed California-based outfit called Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment (ACCE). The new organization has hired former ACORN employees.
Meanwhile, the Minnesota ACORN chapter has also rebranded as Neighborhoods Organizing for Change (NOC). They deny any ACORN connection, but the staff is mostly the same and the group’s stated objectives are the same. Steve Fletcher, the former head organizer for Minnesota’s ACORN is the executive director of the newly formed NOC – Minnesota.
Local ACORN chapters in at least four other states have rebranded as new non-profit corporations under the management of former ACORN leaders. Texas ACORN is now the Texas Organizing Project. In Missouri, ACORN is now Missourians Organizing for Reform Empowerment (MORE). New York now has New York Communities for Change. The Massachusetts ACORN chapter has been replaced with New England United for Justice and the original ACORN in Arkansas is now Arkansas Community Organizations (ACO).
It’s worth noting at this point that ACORN wasn’t always a national organization. It was originally called Arkansas Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Most likely, more news will emerge soon about other state chapters rebranding and reopening. A leaked email written by Nathan Henderson-James, an ACORN strategy director described their plan to launch “a dozen or more organizations launched on the state level by staff who used to work for ACORN and leaders who developed their skills as ACORN members.”
Despite their instance to the contrary, ACORN’s biggest national operations also continue. ACORN Housing, probably ACORN’s biggest cash clearing house is under investigation by HUD, but now carries on under a new name: Affordable Housing Centers of America.
The other key piece of ACORN’s national apparatus is Project Vote, the operation that engages in ACORN's voter registration drives and get out the vote efforts. Project Vote employees have been charged with voter registration fraud in over a dozen states, but that arm of the ACORN empire continues to operate unperturbed. They didn’t even bother to change their name.
ACORN’s survival strategy seems to be to set up newly named, ostensibly non-affiliated organizations in key states and lay low while the new “independent” groups get established in their communites without ACORN’s tarnished image and legal baggage, to then “organically” regroup into a new national organization in a couple years. They’ve been wounded, and forced to downsize, but arguably, their most dangerous operation, Project Vote continues unabated. Redoubled vigilance will be needed in preventing vote fraud in the upcoming 2010 election.
|
|
|
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
Election Bill is a Partial Victory for Minnesota Voters |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
4/1/2010
|
|
|
|
 Minnesota Majority's Two-Year Call for Reforms Finally Heeded
Today Governor Tim Pawlenty signed the Election Administration Reform Bill into law, establishing a critical milestone in addressing problems that have undermined the integrity of Minnesota’s election system.
Minnesota Majority, a government watchdog group who has been calling for election reforms for nearly two years, applauded the action. “This is a good first step toward improving the integrity of our election system,” said Jeff Davis, President of Minnesota Majority. “We thank all of our members who have joined us in the fight for reforms, as well as the legislators who championed the bill, including Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, Rep. Ryan Winkler, Sen. Chris Gerlach and Sen. Katie Sieben.” The bill, HF3108, was passed by unanimous consent in both the House and the Senate, an unusual occurrence for major reform legislation.
Minnesota Majority began researching inconsistencies in Minnesota’s election system prior to the 2008 general election. Minnesota Majority warned Secretary of State Mark Ritchie of its findings which Ritchie largely dismissed. After the election, Minnesota Majority discovered numerous problems with election records, including thousands more ballots counted than voters that had been accounted for as having voted, thousands of unverifiable voter registration addresses, deceased voters on the rolls, felon voters and incomplete voter registrations. Minnesota Majority’s research indicated that enough convicted felons cast fraudulent votes to affect the outcome of the 2008 Senate race.
HF3108 addresses many of these issues by requiring the secretary of state to perform a number of database cross-checks similar to what Minnesota Majority did to uncover the problems in the first place. In addition, new reporting and ballot reconciliation requirements in the bill will help prevent recurrence of those kind of issues and reveal where problems persist.
While HF3108 made significant improvements, Minnesota Majority says there’s still work to be done. “The next step is to secure the vote with a photo ID requirement,” Said Davis.
Take Action: Contact your elected officials and thank them for taking steps to protect the integrity of Minnesota's elections. It might also be a good time to remind them of the continued need for photo ID at the polls.
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
Election Integrity Bill Passed Unanimously |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
3/28/2010
|
|
|
 House and Senate in Full Agreement With Changes to Election Administration Laws, Sans Photo ID
After the 2008 election, Minnesota Majority discovered that not only were dead voters still on the voter rolls, but the secretary of state’s voter history files indicated that some had voted. The secretary of state’s office explained that data entry errors were more likely to blame in at least 5 instances, but not all have been investigated. The new bill will require the secretary of state’s office to conduct additional checks on the voter files to eliminate deceased voters, including cross-referencing the social security administration, essentially the same check Minnesota Majority performed to discover deceased voters. This will help ensure that the voter records of people who die out of state are properly removed, an integrity step that is severely hindered under the current election statutes.
Convicted felons on the voter rolls will also be more likely to be detected with a required check similar to what Minnesota Majority did to discover up to 2,800 felons who are suspected of voting illegally in the 2008 election. The secretary of state’s office will have to cross-reference voter registration records with the department of corrections database. Previously, felons were only challenged if the secretary of state or county auditors received a notice from the courts. Under the new bill, felons who are registered to vote will be proactively checked for.
In the wake of the contentious 2008 election, tens of thousands of newly registered voters could not be verified by mail. The secretary of state mails a postal verification card (PVC) to registrants, informing them of their polling location and confirming that they registered. If that post card is returned undeliverable, the voter is flagged for challenge at the next election, although their vote had already been counted. Over 60,000 of those postcards were returned after the 2008 election. This information isn’t easy for the public or the legislature to find. With passage of the election administration bill, a report to the legislature on returned PVCs will be generated after each general election, and county attorneys will be compelled to investigate instances where an obvious and legitimate explanation for a returned postcard can’t be discerned.
Although the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires checks for non-citizens, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie failed to use Department of Public Safety (DPS) data for the first two years he was in office to check for non-citizens on the voter rolls, even though DPS had provided his office a monthly update. The elections bill clarifies the secretary of state’s responsibility to use DPS data to determine whether known non-citizens have become registered to vote. The bill also requires notice to county attorneys when non-citizens are discovered on the voter rolls.
Minnesota Majority’s research revealed that the Statewide Voter Registration System’s voter history files cannot account for all ballots counted in the 2008 general election. The canvassing board reported 2,920,214 ballots, but as of April of 2009, the secretary of state could only account for 2,878,899 voters who participated in the 2008 election. That means over 40,000 ballots were counted than voters who signed in or submitted an absentee ballot.
The secretary of state’s office has since whittled that discrepancy down to around 25,000 ballots and suggested that the discrepancy can be explained by nuances in SVRS reporting and the dynamic nature of the system, but Minnesota Majority also examined original polling place rosters and absentee ballot envelopes in three Ramsey county precincts and found discrepancies there that can’t be accounted for by the secretary of state’s explanation. Between the three precincts scrutinized, over 50 more ballots had been counted in the certified election results than there were signatures of voters. There are thousands of precincts in Minnesota and it’s strongly suspected that there are similar discrepancies in many others.
To help combat future vote total discrepancies, the bill requires a reconciling of ballots at every precinct. Election judges will be required to count blank ballots received, ballots used, spoiled or duplicated, absentee ballots received and also count the number of voters who signed in. All counts must balance at the end of election night and a report of all counts must be prepared by the election judges.
Another significant feature of the bill comes courtesy of Representative Dan Severson, who discovered that a travesty had occurred regarding military absentee ballots in the 2008 election. Because the secretary of state’s office did not prepare and disseminate military ballots quickly enough, over 8% of the military absentee ballots that made it back to Minnesota were ultimately rejected, mostly because they arrived too late to be counted. As many as 2,100 other ballots sent out to military members overseas never came back at all, likely because they had already missed the deadline for return by the time they were received by the soldiers.
Severson, an Air Force veteran himself, fought for changes in the way military absentee ballots will be handled by Minnesota election officials. Under the new bill, soldiers deployed overseas will have more options for acceptable forms of absentee ballots and another elections bill Severson worked on that was recently signed by the governor addressed the small window of time for military ballots to be sent out and return. These new provisions will re-enfranchise our soldiers who should never be denied their right to participate in our elections.
Minnesota Majority is very pleased that our research and advocacy has compelled the legislature to take action to clean up some of the glaring problems in Minnesota’s election system. HF3108 is a great start on improving integrity in our elections, but it does leave some pretty big holes in place. Same-day registrants still aren’t subjected to the scrutiny voters who register in advance of an election are and the number of same-day registrants has risen sharply in recent years. Checks to verify the identity of same-day registrants aren’t performed until after their votes have been cast and counted.
The most obvious integrity measure is nowhere to be found in the bill. Requiring a photo ID to vote is the absolute best way to curtail fraud and verify residency for purposes of establishing a voter’s eligibility to vote in a given precinct. That isn’t going to happen this session, but we’ll continue to fight for it again next year.
Minnesota Majority thanks all of our members who have taken part in the fight for election integrity by volunteering to help with research, showing up at rallies, signing the election integrity petition, calling legislators and everything else. Thanks also to the champions of the election administration bill: Representatives Mary Kiffmeyer (16B), Ryan Winkler (44B), Senators Chris Gerlach (37) and Katie Sieben (57).
Take Action: Contact your state representative and senator and tell them, 'thank you' for their vote for election integrity.
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
Defend Minnesota’s Constitutional Rights, Stop Obamacare |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
3/24/2010
|
|
|
 State Legislators, Governor Stand Up Against Federal Overreach
The new health care law rammed through by Speaker Pelosi, Senator Harry Reid and just signed by President Obama will force you to buy an expensive, federal government-approved health insurance policy on penalty of fines and even imprisonment. This is an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of federal power.
The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution is very clear about the limitations of the federal government’s enumerated powers. It reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The ink of President Obama’s signature on the hotly opposed health care reform bill was barely dry when the lawsuits began. 14 states have so far launched suits to overturn the new health care law, asserting that it is unconstitutional and abridges states’ rights. Virginia was the first to tee up to sue, but the 13 other states were quick to follow.
In Minnesota, state senator Julianne Ortman (R-34) attempted to move a resolution that would call on Attorney General Lori Swanson to prepare to defend Minnesota’s sovereignty, but Democrats on the Health, Housing and Family security committee wanted to turn it around and amend Ortman’s resolution to instead support Obamacare. Ultimately, that resolution was tabled, but Governor Pawlenty picked up that ball, writing a letter calling on the Attorney General to investigate Minnesota’s legal options.
In addition, the entire Republican caucus of both the state House and the Senate have signed a letter asking Swanson to file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health care law.
So far Lori Swanson, an ACORN endorsee, has been recalcitrant. Her response was, “Our Office has not yet read and analyzed the 2,400 page bill... The Attorney General’s Office operates in the legal arena and we are not going to make any legal comments until we have had the opportunity to review the 2,400 page bill.” Swanson’s campaign website says she distributed “tens of thousands of pamphlets advocating for universal health care.”
State Representative Ryan Winkler (D-44B) said the lawsuit effort was “frivolous,” and added, “The states’ rights argument is a myth.”
Craftily, most of the health care ‘reforms’ don’t take effect for 2-3 years. Lawmakers who pushed Obamacare against the will of the overwhelming majority probably hoped their votes would be long forgotten by then, but it also affords us an opportunity to stop it before any serious damage is done.
Take Action:
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
Senate Resolution on Obamacare Dead in Committee |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
3/19/2010
|
|
|
 10th Amendment a Mystery to Some State Legislators
Senator Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen) introduced a resolution calling on Minnesota’s entire congressional delegation to vote against what she says is an unconstitutional federal health care reform bill expected to come to a vote in the US House as soon as Sunday.
Ortman’s resolution also calls on the state attorney general to prepare to defend the rights of Minnesota as a state in the union.
In the end, the resolution didn’t make it out of the committee, but it made for some interesting interaction between committee members. A discussion of the US Constitution and the bearing of the 10th amendment on state authority by state lawmakers was revealing.
“No Fundamental Right in the Constitution to be Uninsured”
When health care writer and Constitutional teacher Dave Racer was testifying before the committee on the unconstitutional nature of the federal health care bill, he said, “Under the Federal Constitution, the federal government has no authority to require me to buy health insurance.”
Senator Berglin (D-Minneapolis) chimed in, saying, “Just because you say something is unconstitutional, doesn’t mean it is and it doesn’t mean that we should believe it is. The commerce clause of the US Constitution does give the Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce. The sale of insurance is part of interstate commerce.”
Senator Ortman interjected “If Congress were going to regulate the health care industry, they can do that, but that’s not what this is. This is a mandate to me as an individual to buy health insurance and the commerce clause has never been used in that way.”
Berglin responded, “There is no fundamental right in the Constitution to be uninsured.”
“I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I hope that you will read [the Constitution],” Ortman replied.
Senator Higgins Frustrated by the Constitution
Speaking about the 10 th amendment to the Constitution, which reserves powers not specifically enumerated for the federal government to the states and to the People, Senator Higgins (D-Minneapolis) said, “I get really frustrated with this tendency to parse every word in this little section of the Constitution.
“The people who wrote the Constitution never imagined that we would have air travel, so is the Air Force unconstitutional? Is our regulation of airports and airlines unconstitutional?” Higgins asked.
Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the right to raise and support armies (the Air Force evolved from the US Army), maintain the Navy (the rest of our primary air power resides with the Navy) and to regulate commerce between the states.
“How about the interstate highway system? Is that unconstitutional? There’s nothing in here about a highway system,” she said, tapping a copy of the Constitution. “There’s something about post roads, whatever that is.”
Perhaps Senator Higgins could benefit from a refresher course in the Constitution. The power to create post roads is enumerated for the federal government by the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. A post road is literally a road for the delivery of mail, or in other words, a federal highway system.
Higgins went on to cite more examples of federal programs she didn’t believe were enumerated in the Constitution. “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Bureau of Mines, Small Business Administration… the Environmental Protection Agency all of these things have come to us as our world has evolved.
“I just find the whole thing just really frustrating,” she concluded.
Amendment to Reverse the Meaning of the Resolution
Senator Marty (D-Roseville) offered an amendment to Ortman’s resolution that would have reversed the intent. Marty’s amendment changed the resolution to one encouraging Minnesota’s congressional delegation to vote for Obamacare.
Marty said if the bill was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would deal with it and suggested it should be supported, questions of constitutionality notwithstanding.
Marty’s amendment maneuver would have left Ortman’s name on a resolution bill calling on Congress to do the opposite of what she intended if the amendment was adopted. Given the makeup of the committee, the adoption of Senator Marty’s amendment was almost a certainty, despite objections from some senators about the disrespectful nature of that play.
Senator Ortman asked for a motion to be made to table her resolution, essentially killing it rather than have it amended to state the opposite of her intent with her name as chief author left on the bill.
A motion to table was made and adopted by the committee, ending Senator Ortman’s attempt to offer a resolution asserting Minnesota’s sovereign rights as a state in the United States of America.
See video of the committee meeting. Discussion of Sen. Ortman's resolution begins about 2 hours in.
|
|
|
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
State Senator Ortman Takes a Stand on Obamacare |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
3/18/2010
|
|
|
 Senator Julianne Ortman has introduced a resolution in the state Senate that calls on Minnesota’s congressional delegation to vote against the federal health care reform bill. The resolution also directs the state’s attorney general to file lawsuits defending Minnesota’s rights as a state, questioning the constitutionality of the federal health care bill.
“The legislation being considered by Congress is unconstitutional and threatens the rights of Minnesotan citizens,” Ortman said.
The resolution is being heard today in the Senate Health, Housing and Family Security Committee. Read the resolution here.
Governor Pawlenty has also weighed in, urging Minnesota's congressional delegation to vote against Obamacare. In a letter to the delegation, Pawlenty cited a number of common-sense reform measures, like malpractice reform, guaranteeing portability, tax equity for health insurance purchases among others, noting, "unfortunately the proposal now before the US House does not focus on these types of common sense reforms."
The final vote on Obamacare in the US House of Representatives may take place as soon as this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|