Horse Slaughterhouse bill becomes law, but questions remain

Default? (0.00 / 0)

Once a bill hits the Governor's desk its got 10 days to either be signed or vetoed...if neither happens, it becomes law.  This applies to every piece of legislation that makes it through both houses.

I'm assuming Ed Butcher has a stash of Polaroids tucked away somewhere of legislators in compromising positions...

Um...why do you blame the Legislature for this bill becoming law?  Schweitzer had final say right?

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 17:08:42 PM UTC

"by default" (0.00 / 0)

Yes, b/c the governor took no action on the bill, it became law by default. Yup. Yup. Yup.

BTW, the legislature is the branch of government that creates legislation. The Good Guv didn't write it, didn't debate it in committee, pass it out of committee, vote on it three times, pass it to the second body, hold hearings on it, debate it in committee, pass it out of committee, vote on it three times, send it to the governor, get it back, debate on it again, and vote for it again.

Sure, maybe the Guv did the expedient thing and let it move on. But make no mistake, this dog belongs to the legislature.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 18:37:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then why no veto? (0.00 / 0)

Why do "the expedient thing and let it move on"?

If it's such awful legislation, why didn't he kill it himself?

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 18:53:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Because he knows it will die (0.00 / 0)

the first time it is challenged in court. Why bloody his fingers with the thing if he doesn't have to? First rule of politicians: inflict as little self damage as possible.

---

by: JC @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 19:39:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Have you ever tried asking (0.00 / 0)

The Democrats in the House why they voted how they did?

http://laws.leg.mt.gov/laws09/...

That shows the vote on the Governor's proposed amendments.  I see quite a few Dems voting to stop those changes.  Start there, and perhaps you'd have more than snarky innuendo to go on.

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 17:16:09 PM UTC

I'm guessing... (0.00 / 0)

...they're voting on the bill the way it was framed in debate, not on what it actually is. Sure a slaughterhouse would be convenient to have around, but those d*mned provisions giving the industry a free legal pass. It's freaky.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 18:38:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You speak as if none of the (0.00 / 0)

Democrats actually read the proposed legislation.  

You're saying that the Dems were duped by the GOP into supporting the bill?! Butcher must be one hell of an orator!  LOL

Have you lost faith in your party, OR have you lost faith in your party for right now?

 

---

by: Rusty Shackleford @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 18:51:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

er... (0.00 / 0)

...I feel like you're trying to set some weird rhetorical trap here.

Er, I think a lot of reps vote on how they think their constituencies perceive a bill. Butcher's bill was framed as being an up-or-down on slaughterhouses, not what amounts essentially to a free legal giveaway to an industry.

Later, when editorial boards finally came around to the topic, they all spoke out against it. But most of the Dems that supported this seem to be from rural areas, where the need for a slaughterhouse is greater. So, there's more pressure to vote for it, even tho' it's crap.

That and a number of Dems obviously don't give a rat's *ss about the constitutional mandate for a "clean and healthful environment."

Obviously I disagree with Dems on particular issues. This is one of them. Go figure.

---

by: Jay Stevens @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 00:16:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

MEPA circumvention (0.00 / 0)

guarantees that any proposed facility will garner a constitutional challenge. One would hope that the knowledge that any proposal would need to come complete with a financing package to mount a legal defense at the state Supreme Court level would be enough to derail any industrial plans to build such a facility.

Section 3. Inalienable rights. All persons are born free and have certain inalienable rights. They include the right to a clean and healthful environment... and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways...

---

by: JC @ Tue May 05, 2009 at 18:52:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Are you saying that Democrats didn't understand (0.00 / 0)

What they were voting for?  When it initially passed, why did they vote for it?  

I'll ask again... Why not actually ASK one of them?

- Keeping the Left honest since 2001

---

by: sydney@alias @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 17:03:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

They didn't vote for the Gov.'s amendments (0.00 / 0)

because they didn't want a slaughter facility at all.  Kerns made the motion "Do not concur" so they gave him what he wanted - thinking that the Governor would stand by an amendatory veto based in large part on it being illegal - unConstitutional.  

How Schweitzer let this pass into law is pure negligence of duty.  He takes some sort of oath of office and most certainly somewhere in there is an oath to uphold the laws of this state. His veto acknowledge the unConstitutionality of the bill...just because he didn't sign it into law doesn't absolve himself of his complicity with it becoming law.

That his action (or lack thereof, depending on how you look at it) will result in cost to the taxpayers defending this foolishness, he did wrong.  If it was politically expedient for him?  It's then twice as wrong.

I do hear that he failed to sign the bill because he was in such a rush to catch that flight to Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Derby.....and that's only half snark.

---

by: jhwygirl @ Wed May 06, 2009 at 01:17:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]