As
the country shifts its attention from the Iowa caucus to the upcoming
primary in New Hampshire, the state’s Republican legislators are busy
passing some of the most
laws in the country. Today the GOP-controlled Senate passed HB 542, which
out of any school lesson that the parent objects to, forcing the school
to design an alternative lesson. Their House colleagues approved the
measure earlier last year.
The bill will now go to Gov. John Lynch’s (D) desk. Lynch, who
of the same bill, is expected to nix it once again. He pointed out in
his last veto message that the bill failed to clearly define what
material would be objectionable — allowing any parent to withdraw their
child for almost any reason.
the move, calling it “an unprecedented attack” on “New Hampshire
children’s right to a quality education.” “In fact it will end education
in New Hampshire as we know it, allowing children to be removed from
any lessons their parents choose, algebra, English language arts, health
education, American history, the civil or women’s rights movement,
science, absolutely anything,” they said.
on cash-strapped towns and cities by requiring school districts to create a unique curriculum for each and every student.
Since the 1970s, New Hampshire police have
operated under a progressive policy
for handling domestic violence cases that has saved countless lives.
Under current law the presumption is that an arrest will be made when
police observe evidence of abuse. They have a large degree of discretion
and don’t need to witness the assault firsthand or obtain a legal
warrant before they can separate the alleged attacker from his victim.
All that will change if Republicans get their way. The state’s GOP
legislators are pushing two bills that will reverse a half century of
progress, the Concord Monitor
reports:
Domestic violence is no longer taken lightly legally or by society. That’s the way it should be, but two bills under consideration by this most unusual of legislatures, would undo that progress and put lives in danger. Both deserve a speedy defeat.
House Bill 1581 would turn the clock back 40 years to an age
when a police officer could not make an arrest in a domestic violence
case without first getting a warrant unless he or she actually witnessed
the crime. That’s an exceedingly dangerous change. Consider
the following scenario, one outlined for lawmakers by retired Henniker
police chief Tim Russell:
An officer is called to a home where she sees clear evidence that an
assault has occurred. The furniture is overturned, the children are
sobbing, and the face of the woman of the house is bruised and bleeding.
It’s obvious who the assailant was, but the officer arrived after the
assault occurred. It’s a small department, and no one else on the force
is available to keep the peace until the officer finds a judge or
justice of the peace to issue a warrant. The officer leaves, and the
abuser renews his attack with even more ferocity, punishing his victim
for having called for help. [...]
It’s impossible to say how many lives the policy, in place since the 1970s, has
saved or how many injuries it’s prevented. If they adopt House Bill
1581, lawmakers might find out, but the price paid could be
extraordinarily high.
The other bill Republicans have proposed, HB 1608,
limits judges’ ability
to order the arrest of someone who has violated a domestic violence
restraining order by contacting or abusing the person named in the
order. It would also prevent judges from ordering defendants to
surrender their weapons or block them from buying guns.
Police say the bill stops them from
intervening to protect victims.
For instance, they would be stripped of their power to arrest someone
who is threatening to use violence against a victim or child. It’s
unclear why New Hampshire Republicans have set their sights on repealing
protections for abuse victims when promised to focus on economic
priorities.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
New Hampshire GOP Bill Mandates That New Laws Find Their Origin In 1215 English Magna Carta
New
Hampshire Republicans are taking textual originalism to a whole new
level: three lawmakers have proposed a bill that requires that all
legislation
find its origin not in the U.S. constitution, but an English document crafted in 1215.
When the legislature reconvenes this month, Republicans want their colleagues to
justify many new bills with a direct quote from the 800-year-old Magna Carta:
House Bill 1580 is the product of such a brainstorming
session this summer between three freshman House Republicans: Bob
Kingsbury of Laconia, Tim Twombly of Nashua and Lucien Vita of
Middleton. The eyebrow-raiser, set to be introduced when the Legislature
reconvenes next month, requires legislation to find its origin in an English document crafted in 1215.
“All members of the general court proposing bills and
resolutions addressing individual rights or liberties shall include a
direct quote from the Magna Carta which sets forth the article from
which the individual right or liberty is derived,” is the bill’s one
sentence.
The Magna Carta, while famed as the first major declaration of rights
under English monarchy, is a bit outdated in its actual prose.
The Magna Carta is indisputably an important historical document,
with ideas about liberty that inspired America’s founders. But as the
Concord Monitor
points out,
the substance of the document is fixated on the tedium of feudal times,
and has little if any relevance to modern American life.
New Hampshire lawmakers might have trouble applying passages like,
“We shall straightway return the son of Llewelin and all the Welsh
hostages,” or, “If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies
before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the
debt for so long as he remains under age.”
One of the bill’s sponsors admitted that he
wasn’t terribly familiar
with the actual text, and mainly saw the measure as an homage. New
Hampshire Democratic Party spokesman Ray Buckley said he was “mostly
speechless” when he heard about the bill. “I appreciate all the hard
work the Republican legislators are putting into the effort to make them
look like extremists,” he said. “Saves us the trouble.”
Conservatives have long prided themselves on being constitutional
“purists” who want to strip government down to the basic form they say
was laid out in the country’s founding document. But requiring textual
justification from another country’s founding document, which has no
legal history or authority in the U.S., is a curious extension of that
principle.
As the country’s focus shifts from the Iowa caucus to the more
influential New Hampshire primary, it’s worth noting that the state’s
Republicans apparently trying to repeal not just the 20th century
“welfare state,” or even the 20th century, but the modern era entirely.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
New Hampshire Republicans Propose Bill To Eliminate Workers’ Lunch Breaks
“
This is an unneeded law,” [Republican state Representative Kyle Jones] said.
“If I was to deny one of my employees a break, I would be in a very bad
position with the company’s human resources representative.
If you consider that this is a very easy law to follow in that everyone already does it, then why do we need it? Our constituents have already proven that they have enough common sense to do this on their own.”
The bill’s sponsor, state representative J.R. Hoell, argued that
companies failing to provide lunch breaks would be shamed over social
media, thus rendering the law unnecessary. “If they are not letting
people have lunch, they could put it out though the news media,
though social media. I don’t think that abusive behavior would continue, the way communications are today,” he said.
Of course, not every employer can be counted to to follow even the
easiest of requirements to look after workers’ health and rights. Back
in 2005, Walmart was forced
to pay $172 million for denying workers their lunch breaks. Pyramid Breweries Inc.
settled a case in 2008 for $1.5 million. Just a few months ago, California ordered Embassy Suites to pay workers
tens of thousands of dollars for forcing them to skip breaks.
“The fact that in 2012, I would be even sitting in front of the Labor
Committee talking about eliminating the lunch hour is outrageous,” said
Mark MacKenzie, New Hampshire’s state AFL-CIO representative.
“People
should at least be able to be
given the opportunity to eat.”
Fortunately, the bill does not seem too appealing to most of the New
Hampshire legislature, and the state House’s labor committee adjourned
yesterday
without voting on it.
