tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post8172076425149674111..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-44525433150267441282007-02-22T05:54:00.000-05:002007-02-22T05:54:00.000-05:00Ed, you're dreaming.<BR/><BR/>Harrison Ullman was right, God rest his soul. <BR/><BR/>"America's worst state legislature."<BR/><BR/>All those bad sportcoats and hair add up to about four combined brains.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-79990412062773738062007-02-21T23:54:00.000-05:002007-02-21T23:54:00.000-05:00My guess is that he has run into legislators who have read the fine print and realize that, at the very least, his amendment (SJR7) puts domestic violence law at risk. (I have worked with the sisterhood, and you do not want to tangle with them.)<BR/><BR/>His solution is creative: he is proposing a law to change the definition of who qualifies so that the constitutional amendment will no longer apply to them. Sort of like writing a law that defines Paganism as a social club, so that you could discriminate freely against them without running up against the freedom of religion nonsense.<BR/><BR/>My guess is it will not work in the courts. I doubt that Hershman would want it to do so. Whether he can bamboozle legislators into thinking that law or chicanery can trump a constitutional amendment (i.e. the constitution) I cannot say.<BR/><BR/>Wouldn't it be nice to have two houses full of legislators who knew that the constitution trumps any law, without having to be told?Edward Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13708409286905153387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-19535866339539033612007-02-21T22:40:00.000-05:002007-02-21T22:40:00.000-05:00Your analysis is spot-on, Gary. Hershman and comrades are devious SOBs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com