Immigration was predicted to be a hot topic for this session and has been
sidelined. Why?The answer is the wealthy and political elite wanted
it swept under the rug. They know that they are stuck with unconstitutional
legislation, HB116, and they don't want to talk about it. They are hoping that
they can get past the election and then they won't have to worry for a few
months. By sweeping it under the rug they can pretend that they couldn't do
anything about it, when constituents bring up the issue. They know that they are
on the opposite side of the voters when it comes to illegal immigration.
I think for teachers it just livened up with the merit pay bill making it out of
the senate committee. If this bill does pass it could really change the face of
education and teaching in Utah, and I would predict not for the better.
Ya -- I kinda miss having Utah House Representatives showing up
sporting a huge pistol, comments about ugly black babies, secret closed door
meetings, and getting arrested for Drunk driving.Just another
session of Reagan Outdoor Advertising wanting to splatter billboards up
everywhere - continuing making Utah look just another backwards 3rd world city
like Tijuana or New Dehli.
This legislature isn't really dead. A battle is going on to end/change the
vehicle safety inspection program, an unnecessary and ineffective program that
the wastes the time and money of all Utah motorists, and costs motorists 30.1
million dollars a year in inspection fees with over 1.7 million unnecessary
vehicle safety inspections. When John Njord, head of the DMV himself, admits 4
surrounding states have lower accident rates than Utah, and 3 trend near
Utah-and none of these states have a vehicle inspection program, then that's not
boring-especially when you see the car dealers and mechanics scramble to keep
their state mandated jobs program going. This is really a big story, but the
powers that be want to keep it hidden.
@EJMI understand that there are legitimate differences of opinion as
to certain phrases and words found in the Constitution, but I believe the power
to declare war only belongs to the people through their representatives, the
Congress. Yes, the President is Commander-in-Chief and can move troops around
and has authority that way, but I do not find the authority in the Constitution
to wage war without the consent of the people. What negatives could possibly
come from requiring both the President and Congress to address the matter? I
believe we could avoid much of the pointless loss of life that has occurred in
our undeclared wars since World War II. Instead of just holding votes on
whether to fund military efforts, an up or down vote on a declaration of war
would force representatives to be more hesitant I believe in engaging our troops
everywhere around the world, and I think that would be a good thing.Yes, you are right that Sean Hannity and Al Sharpton are good examples of bad
examples, but I believe that local pundits also have a responsibility to keep
dialogue enlightening and meaningful. I think your comment was a perfect
example of a civil disagreement, stated logically and without name-calling, that
furthers our discussion and improves our chances of finding the best possible
Mr. Pignanelli refers to "anti-immigration bullies".Where
are they?Maybe he means LEGAL Utah citizens who would like
immigrations laws enforced? None of the people I know are opposed to LEGAL
immigration.Once again, those who are SUPPOSED to be smart men get
confused between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants.BTW - IF both the "right and left" are opposed to the
"solution" passed at last years legislature WHY do you consider that
to be good legislation?The Senate and House leadership are doing a
GREAT job avoiding immigration enforcement legislation, but that won't
necessarily mean those people will be re-elected, or even make it through
caucuses.We will be working towards replacing those representatives who
put the interests of illegal immmigrants AHEAD OF legal American citizens.No, we haven't forgotten enforcement measures are needed!!
I agree with the stance a quiet session is a good session. Every year I become
more and more convinced our rights are in danger when ever the legislature is in
Because they don't tackle any important issues.
@ Mr. King: I can tell that you do your fair share of reading but like the
others who post on here about "following the Constitution" your
interpretation of it, the history of the Constitution (and the ongoing process),
and the Supreme Court's "history" with this document are all at odds.
The powers granted to the President, any President, in Article 2 as Commander in
Chief and the power granted to the legislative branch with declaring war in
Article 1 have always been in conflict. Presidents consistently throughout
history have authorized the use of military force without seeking the approval
of Congress and Congress usually does not like it. Who is right in each case?
That is open to interpretation but that is left to the Court of Last Resort, the
Supreme Court. Not to guys like me and you. As to Mr.Pignanelli's
comments: I would rather read his half-hearted attempts at humor then hear the
diatribes of Al Sharpton and Sean Hannity. Those are the examples on both sides
of the aisle that you should be concerned about. All Mr. Pignanelli needs is a
better comedy writing advisor. I would gladly serve in that capacity for the
occasional free doughnut.
No news is good news when it comes to the legislature.The more they
stay out of education, the better.
Mr Pignanelli,Your comments on the supposed "oddities" of the
Republican candidates may have just been intended as throwaway lines for cheap
laughs, but they represent the shallowness of current dialogue in our country.
I fear that this column too often contributes to the hyperactive red vs. blue,
left vs. right, R vs. D, my-team-vs.-your-team attitudes that we see damaging
our country.Let's examine your line about Ron Paul's "foreign
policy of hiding in caves". You may have thought this was a clever way to
portray Ron Paul's foreign policy as naieve, or backwards, or even a little bit
crazy. Instead, you have demonstrated that you do not understand the practical
applications of a foreign policy based on the Constitution, the Golden Rule, and
the advice of the Founders. Ron Paul doesn't want to hide in caves. We should
have a strong military, dedicated to the defense of the homeland, not nation
building. If there is a legitimate threat to national security, Congress
declares war as the Constitution requires. We fight the war aggressively, win
it, and come home. We don't need troops in Korea, Japan, or Germany. We simply
can't afford it. I don't call that crazy. That's common sense.You
see how in that phrase, you did something that you and Lavar love to accuse the
"extremists" of doing? Speaking only in soundbites that greatly
distort and lie about the position of the opposition. If you care at all about
raising the level of discourse in this country, both of you should give up the
cheap throwaway lines and the snide remarks. Realize that not all who disagree
with your opinion are naive or extreme. Let's all look in the mirror to see if
what we're doing contributes to healthy political discourse, or merely
encourages partisan bickering and incendiary rhetoric.