7-13-2010 Washington DC:
Politics a dirty business? Well, often it does harm folks because a few politicians fail to recognize the consequences of their actions!
Here I'm speaking about three recent pieces of legislation in Congress: FHA Reform Act, Small Business Loans and Unemployment Benefits, where some politician/s used (misused) registrants on sex offender registries to foster their own personal agenda. Or, have they really used this an opportunity to further harm registrants, claiming they were really trying to stop or oppose some legislation?
Which is it? We really have no way of knowing for sure. So, first we need to understand what it is they have done, and how to respond to that to protect registrants and their families, that needs to be our focus!
In response to my recent commentary about the FHA Reform Act, Small Business Loans and Unemployment Benefits, David Hess was kind enough to explain what he thought was really going on. His exact comment is at the end of this post. "Poison Pill" amendments was his explanation, while I claimed it was "Hate" legislation.
Which was it? Or, is it really a deep seated hatred of the politician using a "poison pill" a method of expressing his/her personal hatred, knowing s/he can get away with it? There is no doubt that both are being used together, and lawmakers are fully aware when this happens.
Political trickery, a way to subvert the normal process when lawmakers disagree on something; a "wrecking amendment." Just so folks know, when these lawmakers disagree, the rules say, hold a "Conference Committee" to resolve the differences. Ahhh, wrong again, the rules do not cover bullheadedness!
Two other recent examples of the use of "poison pill/wrecking amendments" with respect to Obama's health care were "The impudent tyranny of Harry Reid" and "GOP Amendment: No Viagra for Sex Offenders," at least according to the media that reported those articles.
So, were these "hate crimes," nope, doesn't fit the definition although it should. Mr. Hess was right, we are left with the "poison pill/wrecking" amendment theory, but we haven't explored this:
While "poison pill/wrecking amendments" are the method, that method used "certain sex offenders" -registrants of sex offender registries- in a way that violates the way registries are supposed to be used; to protect the public. Will these lawmakers be prosecuted for misuse of the registry? I doubt it.
If for no other reason, these amendments need to be removed because there use -herein- violates the principle behind sex offender registries; public safety! Now, who in Congress, or what committee, is in charge of violations of laws, conduct by Congressional members?
In the U.S. House: the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, contact information left side of page. Committee members are.
In the U.S. Senate: the Committee on Rules & Administration, contact information at bottom of page. Committee members are.
Important, actually critical here is, folks who contact these committees, do not complain that sex offenders are being harmed by this legislation (even though true, that is the result). The correct issue here is, the misuse of the sex offender registries. i.e., being used as a poison pill to defeat legislation, and as used, there is no public safety element. And, such violates law.
The lawmakers who inserted these poison pills need to be sanctioned in some manner as they have violated law. Each Chamber must be responsible for policing its own members.
I'll leave folks thinking.
For now, have a great day & a better tomorrow.
eAdvocate (not a lawyer, just an opinion here).
PS: Are all poison pill/wrecking amendments a violation of law? I don't know, each would have to be reviewed on its merits, if any. These three are, in my opinion.
David Hess explains "Poison Pill" amendments:
We must recognize the cynical game that is going on here. It really has nothing (or only secondarily) to do with sex offenders. These amendments are offered not primarily to punish sex offenders but to defeat the legislation to which they are attached. The proponents of these amendments do not want any extended unemployment benefits or FHA reform to be passed.
These amendments are known as "poison pills (In politics also known as "Wrecking amendments)" They are offered because few politicians have the courage to vote against "anti-sex offender" bills. The proponents also hope that if they become a part of the root legislation that a few liberals who care about the civil rights of sex offenders may actually vote against extended unemployment benefits for all.
This game is played by politicians of all stripes. When the Adam Walsh Act was being considered by the House of Representatives, some who were against the bill offered an amendment that said that sex offenders who had been convicted of misdemeanors could not own firearms, expanding a federal firearm ban. The amendment passed because very few could vote for the rights of sex offenders to bear arms. The hope was that this would cause some in the House or the Senate to vote against AWA itself because they care more about Second Amendment Rights than sex offenders. Interestingly, this provision got dropped out in conference committee. That's how the game is played. Comment to "ACTION ALERT: Congress stops certain sex offenders from receiving money under TWO federal programs"
1 comment:
Actually, I was in error on this. I assumed too much and did not look closely enough.
The provision regarding RSOs in the extension of unemployment benefits bill was in the original bill---not in an amendment.
Rep. Edward of Texas who offered the RSO amendment to the FHA reform bill voted for the bill as amended. For this reason, it was not a poison pill amendment.
I have not yet ran down who the Senator was who put the RSO amendment in the Small Business loan bill.
Post a Comment