PDA

View Full Version : Liberty Action Agenda for MARCH 2011 - Pending Legislation for Congress




FrankRep
02-19-2011, 07:56 PM
Liberty Action Agenda for MARCH 2011 - Pending Legislation for Congress



Support H.R. 97, The Free Industry Act. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h97/show)
This act would severely curtail the EPA's arbitrary regulation of greenhouse gases.


As the anthropogenic global warming theory fell to the wayside and dreams of legislating “greenhouse gas” emission levels and cap-and-trade went up in smoke, the EPA’s leadership decided to immediately impose arbitrary emissions standards for all industry and manufacturing, energy production and even farms through agency regulation.

To counter the agency’s tactics, The Free Industry Act, H.R. 97, currently with 121 cosponsors was introduced to “(1) exclude from the definition of the term ‘air pollutant’ carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride and (2) declare that nothing in the Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming.” If passed, this would severely hamper the EPA’s agenda and would rein in the unconstitutional authority this rogue agency has amassed. It’s hard to imagine the EPA defining water vapor as a pollutant in the first place.


Support H.R. 199, Protect America’s Energy and Manufacturing Jobs Act. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h199/show)
This bill aims at curtailing the EPA’s regulatory expansion for two years.


In this same vein, H.R. 199, Protect America’s Energy and Manufacturing Jobs Act was introduced to actually strip the EPA of taking any action under the Clean Air Act for two years concerning the regulation of new carbon dioxide requirements and certain reporting requirements.


Support H.R. 217, Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h217/show)
A measure to defund Planned Parenthood's grants of taxpayer money.


There are several proposed bills that would make a dent in the pro-abortion camp’s profitability column. Rep. Mike Pence’s H.R. 217 with 154 cosponsors would defund Planned Parenthood by ensuring that taxpayer money for family planning is denied to that organization. For 100 percent pro-lifers, a caution: There are exclusions in the bill for the usual “rape or an act of incest against a minor” and for a “woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy.” It would not force these conditions on any hospital if said hospital doesn’t provide funds to any entity that performs abortions. For defunding the most notorious private for-profit abortion businesses in the country, H.R. 217 is a good vehicle.

Contact Congress: Support Ending Taxpayer Funding for Abortion (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=23820&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)



Support H.R. 3, No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/show)
This bill does just what it says, under ObamaCare and under any other program.


No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion, H.R. 3, with 209 cosponsors means to prohibit federal funds for all abortions, with the usual exclusions for rape, incest, and a woman in danger of death, which, again, may be a sticking point for some. It is similar in language and intent to H.R. 358. All three of these protect-life bills are sitting in committees. However, H.R. 3 may see swifter movement through the committee process, arriving on the legislative calendar before others because House Speaker John Boehner has called this particular proposal one of the Republicans’ “highest legislative priorities.”

Contact Congress: Support Ending Taxpayer Funding for Abortion (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=23820&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)



Support H.R. 358, The Protect Life Act. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h358/show)
With 135 cosponsors this measure also has merit.


This bill amends the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — ObamaCare — by prohibiting federal funds from being to used to cover any part of the cost of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion services. It also requires investigations into complaints for violations, and creates consequences for violating the law.

Contact Congress: Support Ending Taxpayer Funding for Abortion (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=23820&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)



Support H.R.140, Birthright Citizenship Act. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h140/show)
Would restore the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment, putting an end to automatic citizenship based on birth location.


One topic that has people highly impassioned is the “anchor baby” debate. For those interested in a clarification of the 14th Amendment’s “subject to jurisdiction” clause, the Birthright Citizenship Act will do the trick. H.R. 140 is not a separate amendment to the Constitution as some other proposals are, nor will it nullify the 14th Amendment. The object of the measure is to revert back to the original intent and meaning of that Amendment when adopted. Because of the debate at the time, there is historical documentation indicating that babies granted full citizenship needed to be born to those who were here legally, and subject to the laws of these United States, without allegiance to any foreign powers — they could not be granted citizenship solely because they were born inside the national borders.

Contact Congress: Support Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011 (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=23379&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)



Support H.R. 459 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h459/show) and S. 202 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s202/show), “Audit the Fed” legislation.


The very popular “Audit the Fed” legislation has made a return in the 112th Congress, numbered as H.R. 459 in the House and S. 202 in the Senate, and introduced by the father-son team of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.). This is the same legislation that passed the House in the 111th Congress but was subsequently gutted by a House subcommittee. Of course, that won’t be happening again as Rep. Ron Paul is currently chairman of that very same Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy. This much-needed audit, if passed, would actually give Americans a transparent look into the country’s central bank by exposing the inner secret banking practices of the Federal Reserve, including the special treatment of elite corporations and foreign governments as well as the extent and bad consequences of the Fed’s expansion of the money supply.


Oppose H.R. 308 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h308/show) and S. 32 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s32/show), The Large Capacity Feeding Device Act.
This bill would limit the amount of rounds in a magazine and criminalize transfer and ownership of the devices, an unconstitutional attack on the Second Amendment.


Using the senseless actions of a lone gunman that occurred in Tucson, Arizona, as a springboard for attacks on our God-given right to bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the Large Capacity Feeding Device Act has been introduced (H.R. 308 and S. 32). The House measure currently has 65 cosponsors, the Senate bill 10.

House Resolution 308 and S.R. 32 would criminalize the transfer and ownership of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and presuppose a certain level of guilt for those in possession of such a device. This limitation is in violation of the Second Amendment and therefore unconstitutional.

Contact Congress: Oppose Proposed Restrictions on the 2nd Amendment (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?AID=972&Screen=alert&IssueId=23483&APP=GAC&SiteID=-1&VV_CULTURE=en-us)

FrankRep
02-19-2011, 09:09 PM
Talking Points (http://www.jbs.org/index.php/members/bulletin-articles/970-talking-points/6626)


1. Senator Rand Paul just distinguished himself as the new “Dr. No” of the Senate. (A medical doctor, the tag fits him very nicely.) His lonely “No” vote on a measure seeking to make a federal crime out of aiming a laser pointer at an airplane set him at odds with 96 of his colleagues who supported it. The Yes voters claimed that a pilot could be temporarily blinded by a laser beam. They’re correct. But should the matter be the subject of another federal law? Time magazine’s Michael Grunwald, who noted that there are already 4,000 federal crimes, agreed with the freshman Senator. Dr. Paul said the matter should be the concern of state and local officials. James Madison said: “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperity of the state.” So, even though it seemed he was alone in stating that the matter was none of the federal government’s business, Senator Paul wasn’t alone after all. He had the Father of the Constitution on his side.

2. The new Congress is heavily Republican. Its GOP members say they are committed to cutting federal spending while they aim toward balancing the federal budget. But they are proposing cuts in the current fiscal year of less than $100 billion while the Obama administration has issued a budget calling for $3,500 billion (or $3.5 trillion). Far from hard-nosed budget cutting, the proposal won’t come close to impacting the federal budget.

3. There’s an important vote coming for both Houses of Congress. The current federal debt ceiling, the amount of borrowing the federal government cannot legally exceed, is $14.294 trillion. That plateau of borrowing will be reached some time in May. So Congress has two options it must soon consider. It can 1) raise the debt ceiling, or 2) it can allow the federal government to become a deadbeat spender unable to meet its obligations. Many members of Congress, of course, will support an increase. But few want to be known for approving such a measure. Posturing and lame excuses will be delivered daily. Does anyone think the debt ceiling will not be raised? And, once it receives a boost, does anyone believe it won’t be reached in a matter of months?

4. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) is the new chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. She has announced plans to have Congress cut the funding our government sends to the United Nations. However, reducing these payments isn’t what’s needed. Withdrawing completely from the world body is the only sane route to follow. As he has in the past, Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) intends to introduce H. R. 1146 entitled the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act.” It calls for termination of U.S. involvement in the United Nations. It deserves support. Where does your congressman stand on this issue?

CaseyJones
02-26-2011, 05:42 PM
bump

FrankRep
03-01-2011, 07:08 PM
http://www.jbs.org/images/stories/Jan_11/eyesopenbabytn.001.jpg



Women's rights organizations are trying to defeat three pro-life bills, HR 3, HR 217, and HR 358, which would help protect preborn babies by ending taxpayer funding for abortion.


Support Ending Taxpayer Funding for Abortion (http://www.jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6648-support-ending-taxpayer-funding-for-abortion)


John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
01 March 2011


Contact Congress/Senate:
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?APP=GAC&AID=972&IssueID=23820&SiteID=-1

100DollarBarrelofOil
03-01-2011, 07:38 PM
Support H.R.140, Birthright Citizenship Act.
Would restore the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment, putting an end to automatic citizenship based on birth location.
One topic that has people highly impassioned is the “anchor baby” debate. For those interested in a clarification of the 14th Amendment’s “subject to jurisdiction” clause, the Birthright Citizenship Act will do the trick. H.R. 140 is not a separate amendment to the Constitution as some other proposals are, nor will it nullify the 14th Amendment. The object of the measure is to revert back to the original intent and meaning of that Amendment when adopted. Because of the debate at the time, there is historical documentation indicating that babies granted full citizenship needed to be born to those who were here legally, and subject to the laws of these United States, without allegiance to any foreign powers — they could not be granted citizenship solely because they were born inside the national borders.

Contact Congress: Support Birthright Citizenship Act of 2011

Curious about the logistics of this. Isn't this something that needs to go through the courts rather than through the legislature?