Please stop HR 875 and S 425

[beak]

Thank You Conradpdx

I perused the bill, but to be truthful it takes me a while to read legal documents. They have a lot of double speak in them and I have to read each sentence a couple times to figure out what it actually says. I'm glad you put it into easy to understand terms. So it sounds like for the most part everyone is cool.

 

[conradpdx]

It's not so much double speak. It's just you have to be careful, every word and every paragraph has a very specific meaning (or at least is suppose to). This why the first section of every bill has a definition section. This is probably the most important part of any bills write up, and often the most overlooked and abused sections of any legislative write up.

And this is where anyone that is doing their own research should start. Without knowing the exact meaning of each term or phrase of the bill it's easy to confuse what the bill is trying to accomplish. This is often where the "spin" comes in when the media (regardless of political bent) discusses these issues. They often exclude the definitions as set forth in the bill and use them as if those terms are the same as everyday speak, which is hardly ever the case. In everyday speak the "terms" are usually much broader and general in context than they are when it comes to the legal definition. Again the legal definitions are suppose to be as exact as possible, so that everyone reading the legislation is on the same page. Though this doesn't always happen and when legislation is passed with vague language it becomes the courts responsibility to decipher the intent of the law. Most court cases on legislative issues are about definitions, not the rest of the bill.

Now in continuing to your homework on legislation I would recommend that you immediately goto the exemption sections. This section is basically an extension of definitions. For example on these bill a processor has a specific definition, the exemption then goes through a further defines a processor as one who processes chickens for consumption and distribution that does less than 20,000 carcasses a year.

Now you might wonder why that the limit isn't in the definition section, which is a legitimate question. But they do this so that further amendments to the bill can amended easier in the future. Once a bill has been passed the definitions are more than less set in stone. In the life of a bill there might be dozens of amendments to it. It's easier for all involved to keep using the familiar definitions set forth in the original bill than to change them for each amendment. Especially considering that their might (and probably are) courts that have ruled based on these definitions and a change in definition would potential change these rulings.

The legislature can and does change exemptions based on the course of events after a bill has been passed. Also usually in exemptions are sections that allow agencies in charge of upholding the legislation to adjust these exemptions. For example if in the course of 3 or 4 years a small processor (under 20,000 birds of their own flock) gets multiple reports of contaminated product, they (the FDA) can say that they are no longer exempt. Likewise if in that same amount of time a processor down the road has consistently exceeded the intent of the law, the agency can adjust their inspection schedule to say periodic surprise inspections as opposed to more constant inspections.

At this point you now know what your dealing with. And then you can start reading the rest of the bill. Unless you do these two steps first you really don't know what you're reading. Also for every bill that is merely an amendment to other bills (such as S 425)you have to do this home work on each bill.

Really though it isn't all that difficult. Cut and paste and tabbed browsing make it easy to keep track of amendments and the original bills. All in all it took me about 20 minutes to decipher the two bills in the title of this thread.

And really more people should know this and participate in doing this on the issues that we(you) are concerned about. After all this is a government which is founded "by the people, for the people" and therefore only as good as "the people". You can't say government is the problem because it's a government "of the people" if the government is bad it is the fault of "the people" for letting it get that way. And the way to keep it from getting that way is to learn all that you can about the process and participate as much as you can in the process.

 

[gypsy2621]

If these laws already exsist in one form or another what and why do we need amendments to them for?
I would question what is not being said nor included that can be slipped in at any given point.
All attention to this sort of thing is always at the very begining when its first introduced, follow ups and follow throughs are rarely done, leaving which ever house ample time to slip in a hidden agenda.
This could be a remnent of NAIS and up till its either defeated or passed we are not going to honestly know about it untill all who raise animals for food and pets are branded criminal.

 

[PurpleChicken]

Quote:
Here we go.

Yes the government did expand at a rate higher than ever before, at least
until now and this DEMOCRAT stimulus package.

Phone taps - Been happening for years anyways
Unlawful combatants - We let most of them go only to have many
kill our boys
Internet data mining - Uhh, private enterprises worldwide already do it.
Why not the government?



P.S. I'm not a Republican. If the Republican party stuck to their core
values we would not be in the mess we are in now.


Like most people here, I want the government's power limited, not expanded
because Congressmen and women want their name on a bill or are bowing to
lobbying by special interest groups.

 

[maplesky7]

I have a prophesy about this thread.

 

[PurpleChicken]

Quote:
Me too. I see it locked soon.

 

[maplesky7]

In the local gazette in bold letters the heading read "Village gets new snow blower."

and it was at least 5 paragraphs long.

How could a snow blower require so much type to tell about?

So the first paragraph has specifics about the snowblower and the rest of the paragraph talks about a zoning meeting about a prospective business that many people were opposed to being in "their" backyard.

very sneaky of them I thought.

I almost skipped that article because i was like, big deal...they got a snow blower.


I certainly don't want to run for office but man, it's crazy out there...and who is going to stand up for our rights if we don't?

me,
g

 

[beak]

Well said conradpdx. I for one will try to use the info you have provided. It sounds like a better way to find out what's going on. Of course the spin masters are easier even if they do leave you ill informed.

Thanks

 

[conradpdx]

"Small Government" is one of those terms that people toss around which means absolutely nothing. Or more accurately means many different things to different people.

For Republicans it means unrestrained free market principles.

For Libertarians it means property owners rights trump that of the state.

For Democrats it relates to social and body politically issues.

For Socialists it means less local politics and more Federal.

Many of the first three groups listed think that lessening the Federal and increasing the states power is the way to go.

"Small Government" is a meaningless term. It tells people nothing.

On a side note, I don't have a party affiliation. But I loath the hypocrisy coming from the Republican Party right now. As well as their shirking themselves of their part of this mess that they largely created.

And though I don't agree with a lot of what the Democrats campain on, at least the Democrats are doing exactly what they said they'd do whether I agree with it or not, and in politics that earns my respect. But on a whole I think you all give them too much credit, they aren't organized enough to do half of what people claim they're trying to do.

 

[Sasquatch]

It seems to be the continuing of the camel entering the tent. This could restrict farmer's markets, roadside stands and private flocks and egg sales. It says the secretary "may" not "shall". These bills always benefit huge agribusiness at the expense of the small grower.