Currently viewing the tag: “Barring”
|
NFL Players Seek Order Barring Owners From Accessing Lockout-Related Money
Bloomberg National Football League players, as part of a lawsuit filed against the league in 1992, today asked a US judge to bar owners from accessing some labor lockout-related revenues until the current impasse … Players ask judge for damages in NFL TV case Players to ask for “substantial” damages award in “lockout insurance” case NFL Players Gain Victory Over League in Workers' Comp Dispute |
(Jim Lindgren)
Michael Stern has a thoughtful post at PointofOrder.com on the arrest clause of the Wisconsin and US constitutions.
He argues (in part):
As Akil Amar and Neal Katyal note in a 1995 law review article, modern cases have given the arrest clause such a narrow construction as to make it a “virtual nullity.” They suggest, however, that a broader interpretation of the clause that once prevailed may be more consistent with the original understanding. Specifically, they argue that “arrest” may be “understood more functionally as extending to various civil cases that interfere with– that arrest– a person’s performance of her duties in public office.” In support of this view, they cite, among other things, an 1840 decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court which held that the privilege should be given a “liberal construction” to ensure “the protection of the rights of the people that their representative should be relieved from absenting himself from his public duties during the session of congress.”
Even at the time when the privilege was given its broadest reading, however, there appears to be no case or commentator suggesting that the privilege would in any way inhibit a legislature from arresting its own members. Among other things, such an interpretation would render unconstitutional longstanding rules and practices of both the U.S. House and Senate. For example, a House rule provides that in the absence of a quorum, “a majority of those present may order the Sergeant-at-Arms to send officers appointed by him to arrest those Members for whom no sufficient excuse is made and shall secure and retain their attendance.”
Moreover, applying the arrest privilege to arrest by the legislature would stand the purpose of the privilege on its head. Rather than protecting against interference by outsiders that might prevent the legislature from fulfilling its functions, or prevent individual legislators from performing their constitutional duties at a session of the legislature, it would now prevent the legislature itself from ensuring that it has a quorum to conduct its business and would empower individual legislators who wished to absent themselves from performing their duties. It would also fly directly in the face of the quorum clauses of the U.S. and Wisconsin constitutions, which authorize each house to “compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties, as each house may provide.” There is simply no warrant (so to speak) for such an interpretation.
From some private correspondence I received today from him, I suspect that we may both see the main potential problem with the Wisconsin resolution as being the contempt and disorderly conduct grounds. And I tend to think that arresting senators is a bad idea politically.
Tbo.com |
Barring mediation miracle, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, NFL will enter dark days
Tampabay.com Barring a mediation miracle this morning, the collective bargaining agreement between NFL owners and the player's union will expire at midnight. What happens next is every fan's nightmare. There will be no on-field … NFL negotiators begin mediation talks in Washington, DC NFL, union negotiators arrive for mediation Don't expect either side to blink anytime soon |
Washington (CNN) – House Speaker John Boehner announced Thursday that the House of Representatives will consider legislation to permanently bar federal funding for elective abortions, calling the measure “one of our highest legislative priorities.”
“A ban on taxpayer funding of abortions is the will of the people and it ought to be the will of the land,” Boehner said at his weekly press conference on Capitol Hill.
Asked why House Republicans were making the social issue a top priority when GOP leaders have repeatedly said economic issues were their main focus, Boehner said he’s making good on a promise Republicans made last year. “Our members feel strongly about the sanctity of human life. We listened to the American people, we made a commitment to the American people in our Pledge to America and we’re continuing to fulfill our commitment.”
The House GOP unveiled their policy agenda in their “Pledge to America” last fall, which put a heavy emphasis on job creation and fiscal responsibility. But in a nod to social conservatives it did include a short section mentioning the issue of abortion: “Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to using tax dollars to pay for abortion, and the executive order issued by President Obama in conjunction with congressional passage of the health care law is inadequate to ensure taxpayer funds are not used in this manner.”
The bill, which Boehner labeled “HR 3" – the low number reserved for prominent legislation – was introduced by New Jersey Republican Chris Smith, who has pushed the issue for several years. Smith has advocated since the 1980s for permanent restrictions on federal funding of elective abortions. Currently, Congress renews those restrictions each year by attaching the so-called “Hyde amendment” to annual funding bills. It was named after the late Illinois Republican Congressman Henry Hyde who opposed abortion rights, and first attached the amendment to a spending measure in 1976.
Boehner reiterated his view that the compromise language included in the health care bill last year did not adequately preclude the federal government from using funds for abortions. During last minute negotiations before the health care vote last year, President Obama reached an agreement with a group of anti-abortion House Democrats and issued an executive order directing agencies not to use federal money for abortions.
“There is an awful lot of doubt as to where the administration is on this issue. I think the will of the people is that we enact this clear cut prohibition on the use of taxpayer funds for elective abortions,” Boehner said.
The abortion rights group Planned Parenthood released a statement opposing the Smith bill.
Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood, said, “Republicans took control of Congress on a promise to create jobs, but instead, one of their first acts is to take away health insurance benefits that the majority of women currently have. The true intent of Congressman Chris Smith’s bill is to end insurance coverage for virtually all abortions, including private insurance coverage that Americans pay for with their own money, even in cases involving the most severe dangers to a woman’s health.”
But Smith’s office maintains that the bill includes exceptions for abortion coverage for victims of rape or incest, or in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.
Abortion rights advocates also object to a provision in the Smith bill that would prohibit those enrolled in insurance plans that cover abortion to claim tax deductions for high health care costs.
GOP leadership aides tell CNN a vote on the bill has not been scheduled yet.
– Follow Deirdre Walsh on Twitter @deirdrewalshcnn
