02-21-2009, 03:22 PM
Unfortunatly, Orvy, this was not a constitutional interpertation made by the court. It was interpertation of statue. If it was interpertation of the constitution it would take a constitutional ammendment to change it, not just a HB that became law. If it was a constitutional matter it would have to go to a general election after passing the house and senate. Like the marrige thing the year before last.
This is much harder on us as the legislat can pass this law and until it is challanged in the courts by someone who is arrested for violating it, the Supreme cannot weigh in again.
This is how politics and politicians work. A series of sneaky end runs.
So we have Wilcox, Watson, Reison and Dee.
I would sugest we all e-mail them and thank them for their support as well as writing the naysayers and let them know that you cannot support them and will contribute to anyone who campaigns against them.
Orvy, where can we find out which of the above reps are ® or (D)?
[signature]
This is much harder on us as the legislat can pass this law and until it is challanged in the courts by someone who is arrested for violating it, the Supreme cannot weigh in again.
This is how politics and politicians work. A series of sneaky end runs.
So we have Wilcox, Watson, Reison and Dee.
I would sugest we all e-mail them and thank them for their support as well as writing the naysayers and let them know that you cannot support them and will contribute to anyone who campaigns against them.
Orvy, where can we find out which of the above reps are ® or (D)?
[signature]