So at first glance, the punishment seems fitting enough: life imprisonment for acts of terrorism.
Trouble is, this law would effectively reduce the definition of "terrorism" to "blocking traffic in front of a government building."
A BILL FOR AN ACTRelating to terrorism; creating new provisions; and amending
section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001.Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. { + (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if
the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any
act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to
disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the
State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of
Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State
of Oregon or its inhabitants.
(2) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person
conspires to do any of the activities described in subsection (1)
of this section.
Relating to terrorism; creating new provisions; and amending section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001
Here is the full text of this crazy bill in case the link goes bad:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0742.intro.html
72nd OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2003 Regular Session
NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + } .
LC 2695
Senate Bill 742
Sponsored by Senator MINNIS
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to
consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor's
brief statement of the essential features of the measure as
introduced.
Creates crime of terrorism. Punishes by life imprisonment.
A BILL FOR AN ACT
Relating to terrorism; creating new provisions; and amending
section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001.
Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. { + (1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if
the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any
act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to
disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the
State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of
Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State
of Oregon or its inhabitants.
(2) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person
conspires to do any of the activities described in subsection (1)
of this section.
(3) A person may not be convicted of terrorism except upon the
testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon
confession in open court.
(4)(a) A person convicted of terrorism shall be punished by
imprisonment for life.
(b) When a person is convicted of terrorism under this section,
the court shall order that the person be confined for a minimum
of 25 years without possibility of parole, release to post-prison
supervision, release on work release or any form of temporary
leave or employment at a forest or work camp.
(c) At any time after completion of a minimum period of
confinement pursuant to paragraph (b) of this subsection, the
State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, upon the
petition of a prisoner so confined, shall hold a hearing, the
sole issue of which is to determine whether the prisoner is
likely to be rehabilitated within a reasonable period of time.
The board shall conduct the proceeding in the manner prescribed
for a contested case hearing under ORS 183.310 to 183.550 except
that:
(A) The prisoner has the burden of proving by a preponderance
of the evidence the likelihood of rehabilitation within a
reasonable period of time; and
(B) The prisoner has the right, if the prisoner is without
sufficient funds to employ an attorney, to be represented by
legal counsel, appointed by the board, at board expense.
(d) If, upon hearing all of the evidence and upon a unanimous
vote of all of its members, the board finds that the prisoner is
capable of rehabilitation within a reasonable amount of time and
that the terms of the prisoner's confinement should be changed to
life imprisonment with the possibility of parole, release to
post-prison supervision or work release, the board shall enter an
order to that effect and convert the terms of the prisoner's
confinement to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole,
release to post-prison supervision or work release and may set a
release date. Otherwise, the board shall deny the relief sought
in the petition.
(e) Not less than two years after the denial of the relief
sought in a petition under paragraph (c) of this subsection, the
prisoner may petition again for a change in the terms of
confinement. Further petitions for a change may be filed at
intervals of not less than two years thereafter. + }
SECTION 2. { + Notwithstanding ORS 181.575 and 181.850, a law
enforcement agency shall cooperate with any federal or state
agency that is investigating an act of terrorism, and a law
enforcement agency may retain any information relating to an
investigation of terrorism as long as the investigation remains
open. The Attorney General shall adopt rules governing the
retention of such information. + }
SECTION 3. Section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001, as
amended by section 5, chapter 696, Oregon Laws 2001, is amended
to read:
{ + Sec. 19. + } The crimes to which section 1 (11)(b),
chapter 666, Oregon Laws 2001, applies are:
(1) Bribe giving, as defined in ORS 162.015.
(2) Bribe receiving, as defined in ORS 162.025.
(3) Public investment fraud, as defined in ORS 162.117.
(4) Bribing a witness, as defined in ORS 162.265.
(5) Bribe receiving by a witness, as defined in ORS 162.275.
(6) Simulating legal process, as defined in ORS 162.355.
(7) Official misconduct in the first degree, as defined in ORS
162.415.
(8) Custodial interference in the second degree, as defined in
ORS 163.245.
(9) Custodial interference in the first degree, as defined in
ORS 163.257.
(10) Buying or selling a person under 18 years of age, as
defined in ORS 163.537.
(11) Using a child in a display of sexually explicit conduct,
as defined in ORS 163.670.
(12) Encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree, as
defined in ORS 163.684.
(13) Encouraging child sexual abuse in the second degree, as
defined in ORS 163.686.
(14) Encouraging child sexual abuse in the third degree, as
defined in ORS 163.687.
(15) Possession of materials depicting sexually explicit
conduct of a child in the first degree, as defined in ORS
163.688.
(16) Possession of materials depicting sexually explicit
conduct of a child in the second degree, as defined in ORS
163.689.
(17) Theft in the second degree, as defined in ORS 164.045.
(18) Theft in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.055.
(19) Aggravated theft in the first degree, as defined in ORS
164.057.
(20) Theft by extortion, as defined in ORS 164.075.
(21) Theft by deception, as defined in ORS 164.085, if it is a
felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
(22) Theft by receiving, as defined in ORS 164.095, if it is a
felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
(23) Theft of services, as defined in ORS 164.125, if it is a
felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
(24) Unauthorized use of a vehicle, as defined in ORS 164.135.
(25) Mail theft or receipt of stolen mail, as defined in ORS
164.162.
(26) Laundering a monetary instrument, as defined in ORS
164.170.
(27) Engaging in a financial transaction in property derived
from unlawful activity, as defined in ORS 164.172.
(28) Burglary in the second degree, as defined in ORS 164.215.
(29) Burglary in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.225.
(30) Possession of burglar's tools, as defined in ORS 164.235.
(31) Unlawful entry into a motor vehicle, as defined in ORS
164.272.
(32) Arson in the second degree, as defined in ORS 164.315.
(33) Arson in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.325.
(34) Computer crime, as defined in ORS 164.377.
(35) Robbery in the third degree, as defined in ORS 164.395.
(36) Robbery in the second degree, as defined in ORS 164.405.
(37) Robbery in the first degree, as defined in ORS 164.415.
(38) Unlawful labeling of a sound recording, as defined in ORS
164.868.
(39) Unlawful recording of a live performance, as defined in
ORS 164.869.
(40) Unlawful labeling of a videotape recording, as defined in
ORS 164.872.
(41) A violation of ORS 164.877.
(42) Endangering aircraft, as defined in ORS 164.885.
(43) Interference with agricultural operations, as defined in
ORS 164.887.
(44) Forgery in the second degree, as defined in ORS 165.007.
(45) Forgery in the first degree, as defined in ORS 165.013.
(46) Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second
degree, as defined in ORS 165.017.
(47) Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first
degree, as defined in ORS 165.022.
(48) Criminal possession of a forgery device, as defined in ORS
165.032.
(49) Criminal simulation, as defined in ORS 165.037.
(50) Fraudulently obtaining a signature, as defined in ORS
165.042.
(51) Fraudulent use of a credit card, as defined in ORS
165.055.
(52) Negotiating a bad check, as defined in ORS 165.065.
(53) Possessing a fraudulent communications device, as defined
in ORS 165.070.
(54) Unlawful factoring of a credit card transaction, as
defined in ORS 165.074.
(55) Falsifying business records, as defined in ORS 165.080.
(56) Sports bribery, as defined in ORS 165.085.
(57) Sports bribe receiving, as defined in ORS 165.090.
(58) Misapplication of entrusted property, as defined in ORS
165.095.
(59) Issuing a false financial statement, as defined in ORS
165.100.
(60) Obtaining execution of documents by deception, as defined
in ORS 165.102.
(61) A violation of ORS 165.543.
(62) Cellular counterfeiting in the third degree, as defined in
ORS 165.577.
(63) Cellular counterfeiting in the second degree, as defined
in ORS 165.579.
(64) Cellular counterfeiting in the first degree, as defined in
ORS 165.581.
(65) Identity theft, as defined in ORS 165.800.
(66) A violation of ORS 166.190.
(67) Unlawful use of a weapon, as defined in ORS 166.220.
(68) A violation of ORS 166.240.
(69) Unlawful possession of a firearm, as defined in ORS
166.250.
(70) A violation of ORS 166.270.
(71) Unlawful possession of a machine gun, short-barreled
rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearms silencer, as defined in
ORS 166.272.
(72) A violation of ORS 166.275.
(73) Unlawful possession of armor piercing ammunition, as
defined in ORS 166.350.
(74) A violation of ORS 166.370.
(75) Unlawful possession of a destructive device, as defined in
ORS 166.382.
(76) Unlawful manufacture of a destructive device, as defined
in ORS 166.384.
(77) Possession of a hoax destructive device, as defined in ORS
166.385.
(78) A violation of ORS 166.410.
(79) Providing false information in connection with a transfer
of a handgun, as defined in ORS 166.416.
(80) Improperly transferring a handgun, as defined in ORS
166.418.
(81) Unlawfully purchasing a firearm, as defined in ORS
166.425.
(82) A violation of ORS 166.429.
(83) A violation of ORS 166.470.
(84) A violation of ORS 166.480.
(85) A violation of ORS 166.635.
(86) A violation of ORS 166.638.
(87) Unlawful paramilitary activity, as defined in ORS 166.660.
(88) A violation of ORS 166.720.
(89) Prostitution, as defined in ORS 167.007.
(90) Promoting prostitution, as defined in ORS 167.012.
(91) Compelling prostitution, as defined in ORS 167.017.
(92) Exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor, as defined
in ORS 167.075.
(93) Unlawful gambling in the second degree, as defined in ORS
167.122.
(94) Unlawful gambling in the first degree, as defined in ORS
167.127.
(95) Possession of gambling records in the second degree, as
defined in ORS 167.132.
(96) Possession of gambling records in the first degree, as
defined in ORS 167.137.
(97) Possession of a gambling device, as defined in ORS
167.147.
(98) Possession of a gray machine, as defined in ORS 167.164.
(99) Cheating, as defined in ORS 167.167.
(100) Tampering with drug records, as defined in ORS 167.212.
(101) A violation of ORS 167.262.
(102) Research and animal interference, as defined in ORS
167.312.
(103) Animal abuse in the first degree, as defined in ORS
167.320.
(104) Aggravated animal abuse in the first degree, as defined
in ORS 167.322.
(105) Animal neglect in the first degree, as defined in ORS
167.330.
(106) Interfering with an assistance, a search and rescue or a
therapy animal, as defined in ORS 167.352.
(107) Involvement in animal fighting, as defined in ORS
167.355.
(108) Dogfighting, as defined in ORS 167.365.
(109) Participation in dogfighting, as defined in ORS 167.370.
(110) Unauthorized use of a livestock animal, as defined in ORS
167.385.
(111) Interference with livestock production, as defined in ORS
167.388.
(112) A violation of ORS 167.390.
(113) A violation of ORS 471.410.
(114) Failure to report missing precursor substances, as
defined in ORS 475.955.
(115) Illegally selling drug equipment, as defined in ORS
475.960.
(116) Providing false information on a precursor substances
report, as defined in ORS 475.965.
(117) Unlawful delivery of an imitation controlled substance,
as defined in ORS 475.991.
(118) A violation of ORS 475.992, if it is a felony or a Class
A misdemeanor.
(119) A violation of ORS 475.993, if it is a felony or a Class
A misdemeanor.
(120) A violation of ORS 475.994.
(121) A violation of ORS 475.995, if it is a felony or a Class
A misdemeanor.
(122) A violation of ORS 475.999 (1)(a).
(123) Misuse of an identification card, as defined in ORS
807.430.
(124) Unlawful production of identification cards, licenses,
permits, forms or camera cards, as defined in ORS 807.500.
(125) Transfer of documents for the purposes of
misrepresentation, as defined in ORS 807.510.
(126) Using an invalid license, as defined in ORS 807.580.
(127) Permitting misuse of a license, as defined in ORS
807.590.
(128) Using another's license, as defined in ORS 807.600.
(129) Criminal driving while suspended or revoked, as defined
in ORS 811.182, when it is a felony.
(130) Driving while under the influence of intoxicants, as
defined in ORS 813.010, when it is a felony.
(131) Unlawful distribution of cigarettes, as defined in
{ - section 3 of this 2001 Act - } { + ORS 323.482 + }.
{ + (132) Terrorism, as defined in section 1 of this 2003
Act.
+ } { - (132) - } { + (133) + } An attempt, conspiracy or
solicitation to commit a crime in subsections (1) to
{ - (131) - } { + (132) + } of this section if the attempt,
conspiracy or solicitation is a felony or a Class A misdemeanor.
----------
This is going on in Minnesota right now, courtesy of Governer Tim Pawlenty (R).
Hey, I get it. This is great. If legislation like this becomes the norm, only rich people will be able to afford to assemble in public places and/or perform acts of civil disobedience.
Pawlenty wants antiwar protesters to pay arrest costs
By Patricia Lopez and Sarah T. Williams for the Star Tribune.
With protests against the war continuing and arrests of demonstrators mounting, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Thursday that he wants those arrested to pay the law-enforcement costs they incur or face prosecution.Press secretary Leslie Kupchella said that "effective immediately," Pawlenty wants judges to begin ordering restitution for the costs of arrest. While he does not have the authority to require judges to do so, he is considering proposing legislation that would require such restitution.
Kupchella said Pawlenty recognizes that charges against protesters typically are dismissed. "He would like that dismissal contingent on restitution," she said. "And he would like to see it happen effective immediately."
Kupchella said the administration has not determined the extent to which protesters should be charged -- whether, for instance, fees would cover the officer's time and the cost of booking and possible prosecution. However, she said, Pawlenty would like to keep the costs "nominal," perhaps $200.
"He thinks that is perfectly reasonable," Kupchella said. "The governor recognizes the rights of people to protest lawfully and have their own opinions. But when they go beyond that and break the law, they should pay the cost."
Kupchella said Pawlenty has found the diversion of law enforcers to protests "very frustrating."
Some members of the legal community expressed skepticism about the proposal's constitutionality, and one recent protester called it an infringement on free speech.
Karen Redleaf, a St. Paul war protester who was arrested twice this week at antiwar demonstrations, called Pawlenty's proposal "really shocking and distressing."
Redleaf, 39, a former stock analyst, said such a move would limit constitutionally protected free speech to those who could afford the price of arrest and prosecution.
"We do this to get news coverage for our views," she said. "They're not charging rapists for the costs of arresting and prosecuting them. We're not hurting anyone. We're just trying to make statements that need to be made."
Retired Hennepin County District Judge J. Bruce Hartigan was dubious about the idea.
"Lots of luck," he said. "It's never going to stand the test of appeal. . . . You're talking about the delicate balance between the First Amendment and governmental power. Chances are [such a fine] would be looked at as an improper infringement on the right to free speech and the right to assemble."
Hartigan, who retired last year after 14 years on the bench and who said he has represented and sentenced dozens of protesters, said the plan also could backfire.
"Let's say I'm a protester. I get together with a bunch of protesters and we go out and get arrested. We get in front of a judge. The judge orders restitution. We say no. We don't pay it. We'll all just go to jail and spend more of the governor's money."
Charles Samuelson, executive director of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, also had constitutional concerns.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/3787447.html
Pawlenty wants antiwar protesters to pay arrest costs
Patricia Lopez and Sarah T. Williams, Star Tribune
Published March 28, 2003
PAWL28
With protests against the war continuing and arrests of demonstrators mounting, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said Thursday that he wants those arrested to pay the law-enforcement costs they incur or face prosecution.
Press secretary Leslie Kupchella said that "effective immediately," Pawlenty wants judges to begin ordering restitution for the costs of arrest. While he does not have the authority to require judges to do so, he is considering proposing legislation that would require such restitution.
Kupchella said Pawlenty recognizes that charges against protesters typically are dismissed. "He would like that dismissal contingent on restitution," she said. "And he would like to see it happen effective immediately."
Kupchella said the administration has not determined the extent to which protesters should be charged -- whether, for instance, fees would cover the officer's time and the cost of booking and possible prosecution. However, she said, Pawlenty would like to keep the costs "nominal," perhaps $200.
"He thinks that is perfectly reasonable," Kupchella said. "The governor recognizes the rights of people to protest lawfully and have their own opinions. But when they go beyond that and break the law, they should pay the cost."
Kupchella said Pawlenty has found the diversion of law enforcers to protests "very frustrating."
Some members of the legal community expressed skepticism about the proposal's constitutionality, and one recent protester called it an infringement on free speech.
Karen Redleaf, a St. Paul war protester who was arrested twice this week at antiwar demonstrations, called Pawlenty's proposal "really shocking and distressing."
Redleaf, 39, a former stock analyst, said such a move would limit constitutionally protected free speech to those who could afford the price of arrest and prosecution.
"We do this to get news coverage for our views," she said. "They're not charging rapists for the costs of arresting and prosecuting them. We're not hurting anyone. We're just trying to make statements that need to be made."
Retired Hennepin County District Judge J. Bruce Hartigan was dubious about the idea.
"Lots of luck," he said. "It's never going to stand the test of appeal. . . . You're talking about the delicate balance between the First Amendment and governmental power. Chances are [such a fine] would be looked at as an improper infringement on the right to free speech and the right to assemble."
Hartigan, who retired last year after 14 years on the bench and who said he has represented and sentenced dozens of protesters, said the plan also could backfire.
"Let's say I'm a protester. I get together with a bunch of protesters and we go out and get arrested. We get in front of a judge. The judge orders restitution. We say no. We don't pay it. We'll all just go to jail and spend more of the governor's money."
Charles Samuelson, executive director of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, also had constitutional concerns.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that law enforcement in regard to First Amendment activities must be content neutral," he said. "If he [Pawlenty] wants to arrest protesters and charge them, he must also be prepared to be equally aggressive with people marching in support of the government's actions -- whatever the cause."
Pawlenty Communications Director Dan Wolter said Pawlenty "absolutely" would want restitution applied to any protester, no matter what the cause.
The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has sparked worldwide protests that occasionally have turned violent. Local protests have remained peaceful, although arrests are on the rise.
Twenty-eight protesters were arrested Monday for refusing to leave U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman's St. Paul office.
On Tuesday, 68 were arrested for blocking entrances to the U.S. Courthouse in downtown Minneapolis. About a third of those demonstrators resorted to standard civil disobedience tactics, going limp when approached by police. Police then had to drag the protesters from the courthouse entrances. The protesters were handcuffed, taken to the Hennepin County jail and charged with trespassing, a misdemeanor.
Redleaf was arrested both times and said she already faces fines of as much as several hundred dollars.
Other states also are turning up the heat. In Washington, Republican Sen. Bill Finkbeiner has proposed legislation that would boost fines from $1,000 to $5,000 for intentional "disruption of traffic by pedestrians." And in California, a district attorney announced that he would prosecute as many as possible of the nearly 2,300 protesters arrested in San Francisco in the past week.
A.K.A. Religiously-Ambiguous Bill Aims To Further Blur The Line Between Church And State
Since when is it the role of our government to determine when the public needs "fasting and prayer." Are they just trying to keep our protien levels low so we're easier to fool?
Which religious practices exactly are being advocated? Some new kind of All-American religion? The Church Of Shrub, perhaps?
Gee Mr. Shrub "President" Sir, I haven't sinned against humanity and I certainly don't need a government-sanctioned day of national fasting to redeem myself.
Will it be against the law (or looked down upon) to eat up during the national day of fasting?
What's next? Appetite suppressants to help us through our national day of fasting? (Perhaps government-issued appetite suppressants? Wait a minute...who'll get the contract?!)
(If this Administration would only put this much effort into feeding people...
Food sure has a crazy way of bringing people together too :-)
Whereas all of the various faiths of the people of the United States have recognized, in our religious traditions, the need for fasting and humble supplication before Providence;Whereas humility, fasting, and prayer in times of danger have long been rooted in our essential national convictions and have been a means of producing unity and solidarity among all the diverse people of this Nation as well as procuring the enduring grace and benevolence of God;
Whereas, through prayer, fasting, and self-reflection, we may better recognize our own faults and shortcomings and submit to the wisdom and love of God in order that we may have guidance and strength in those daily actions and decisions we must take; and
Whereas dangers and threats to our Nation persist and, in this time of peril, it is appropriate that the people of the United States, leaders and citizens alike, seek guidance, strength, and resolve through prayer and fasting: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--
(1) designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States; and
(2) calling on all people of the United States--
(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting;
(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and
(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.
Here is the full text of the document in case the link goes bad:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108e9fu5P::
Bill 2 of 2
There is 1 other version of this bill.
GPO's PDF version of this bill References to this bill in the Congressional Record Link to the Bill Summary & Status file. Printer Friendly Display - 4,229 bytes.[Help]
Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the... (Introduced in House)
HRES 153 IH
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. RES. 153
Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 20, 2003
Mr. AKIN (for himself, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. HAYES, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. MANZULLO, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. PITTS, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. TERRY, and Mr. SOUDER) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform
RESOLUTION
Recognizing the public need for fasting and prayer in order to secure the blessings and protection of Providence for the people of the United States and our Armed Forces during the conflict in Iraq and under the threat of terrorism at home.
Whereas the United States is currently engaged in a war on terrorism in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001;
Whereas the Armed Forces of the United States are currently engaged in a campaign to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein and liberate the people of Iraq;
Whereas, on June 1, 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses called for a day of fasting and prayer as an expression of solidarity with the people of Boston who were under siege by the enemy;
Whereas, on March 16, 1776, the Continental Congress, recognizing that the `Liberties of America are imminently endangered' and the need `to acknowledge the overruling Providence of God', called for a day of `Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer';
Whereas, on June 28, 1787, during the debate of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin, convinced of God's intimate involvement in human affairs, implored the Congress to seek the assistance of Heaven in all its dealings;
Whereas, on March 30, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, at the bequest of the Senate, and himself recognizing the need of the Nation to humble itself before God in repentance for its national sins, proclaimed a day of fasting, prayer and humiliation;
Whereas all of the various faiths of the people of the United States have recognized, in our religious traditions, the need for fasting and humble supplication before Providence;
Whereas humility, fasting, and prayer in times of danger have long been rooted in our essential national convictions and have been a means of producing unity and solidarity among all the diverse people of this Nation as well as procuring the enduring grace and benevolence of God;
Whereas, through prayer, fasting, and self-reflection, we may better recognize our own faults and shortcomings and submit to the wisdom and love of God in order that we may have guidance and strength in those daily actions and decisions we must take; and
Whereas dangers and threats to our Nation persist and, in this time of peril, it is appropriate that the people of the United States, leaders and citizens alike, seek guidance, strength, and resolve through prayer and fasting: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the President should issue a proclamation--
(1) designating a day for humility, prayer, and fasting for all people of the United States; and
(2) calling on all people of the United States--
(A) to observe the day as a time of prayer and fasting;
(B) to seek guidance from God to achieve a greater understanding of our own failings and to learn how we can do better in our everyday activities; and
(C) to gain resolve in meeting the challenges that confront our Nation.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
Is this for real? Is South Carolina trying to force the Dixie Chicks to show up for a free concert so they can be booed and hissed by their former military fans.
I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked. Surely this is unconstitutional.
Don't do it girls! Start your tour from somewhere else, if need be. Sounds like they're crazy in South Carolina anyway.
You could probably sell out here in San Francisco for a week straight.
We'll stand behind you and your constitutional right to speak your mind!
(And you're pretty good at playing them instruments too.)
(S.C. State) House Resolution H 3818
A HOUSE RESOLUTIONTO REQUEST THAT THE DIXIE CHICKS APOLOGIZE TO THE MILITARY FAMILIES IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES FOR THE UNPATRIOTIC AND UNNECESSARY COMMENTS MADE BY THEIR LEAD SINGER BEFORE THEY BEGIN THEIR UNITED STATES TOUR ON MAY 1, 2003, IN GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO REQUEST THAT THEY PERFORM A FREE CONCERT FOR TROOPS AND MILITARY FAMILIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA AS AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR SINCERITY.
Whereas, the Dixie Chicks are a popular and influential country music group from Texas; and
Whereas, before a recent London concert, Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, said that she was ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas; and
Whereas, members of the United States Armed Forces are outraged at the anti-American sentiment expressed by the Dixie Chicks; and
Whereas, there is a large military presence in the State of South Carolina, whom the Dixie Chicks have offended by their comments; and
Whereas, before the Dixie Chicks kick off their United States tour in Greenville on May 1, 2003, the House of Representatives and the people of South Carolina request that Natalie Maines apologize and that the group perform a free concert for the South Carolina servicemen and women and their families.
Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/sess115_2003-2004/bills/3818.htm
South Carolina General Assembly
115th Session, 2003-2004
Download This Bill in Microsoft Word97 format
Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter
H. 3818
STATUS INFORMATION
House Resolution
Sponsors: Rep. Ceips
Document Path: l:\council\bills\bbm\9577sl03.doc
Introduced in the House on March 19, 2003
Adopted by the House on March 19, 2003
Summary: Not yet available
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/19/2003 House Introduced and adopted HJ-15
View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web site
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
3/19/2003
(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)
A HOUSE RESOLUTION
TO REQUEST THAT THE DIXIE CHICKS APOLOGIZE TO THE MILITARY FAMILIES IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES FOR THE UNPATRIOTIC AND UNNECESSARY COMMENTS MADE BY THEIR LEAD SINGER BEFORE THEY BEGIN THEIR UNITED STATES TOUR ON MAY 1, 2003, IN GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO REQUEST THAT THEY PERFORM A FREE CONCERT FOR TROOPS AND MILITARY FAMILIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA AS AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR SINCERITY.
Whereas, the Dixie Chicks are a popular and influential country music group from Texas; and
Whereas, before a recent London concert, Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, said that she was ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas; and
Whereas, members of the United States Armed Forces are outraged at the anti-American sentiment expressed by the Dixie Chicks; and
Whereas, there is a large military presence in the State of South Carolina, whom the Dixie Chicks have offended by their comments; and
Whereas, before the Dixie Chicks kick off their United States tour in Greenville on May 1, 2003, the House of Representatives and the people of South Carolina request that Natalie Maines apologize and that the group perform a free concert for the South Carolina servicemen and women and their families. Now, therefore,
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:
That the members of the House of Representatives of the State of South Carolina, by this resolution, request that the Dixie Chicks apologize to the military families in the State of South Carolina and the United States for the unpatriotic and unnecessary comments made by their lead singer before they begin their United States tour on May 1, 2003, in Greenville, South Carolina, and request that they perform a free concert for troops and military families in South Carolina as an expression of their sincerity.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Dixie Chicks.
----XX----
This web page was last updated on March 20, 2003 at 9:33 AM
