Mike
Why weren't we notified about these
hearings? Did anyone know about them?
Is the legislature holding secret
hearings on important legislation?
We have to protest this policy. This
legislature is as corrupt and unethical
as can be. The MA Constitution says,
"Article V. All power residing
originally in the people, and being
derived from them, the several magistrates
and officers of government, vested
with authority, whether legislative,
executive, or judicial, are their
substitutes and agents, and are at
all times accountable to them.
Article VII. Government is instituted
for the common good; for the protection,
safety, prosperity and happiness of
the people; and not for the profit,
honor, or private interest of any
one man, family, or class of men:
Therefore the people alone have an
incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible
right to institute government; and
to reform, alter, or totally change
the same, when their protection, safety,
prosperity and happiness require it.
Article XIX. The people have a right,
in an orderly and peaceable manner,
to assemble to consult upon the common
good; give instructions to their representatives,
and to request of the legislative
body, by the way of addresses, petitions,
or remonstrances, redress of the wrongs
done them, and of the grievances they
suffer.
Article XXI. The freedom of deliberation,
speech and debate, in either house
of the legislature, is so essential
to the rights of the people, that
it cannot be the foundation of any
accusation or prosecution, action
or complaint, in any other court or
place whatsoever.
Article XXII. The legislature ought
frequently to assemble for the redress
of grievances, for correcting, strengthening
and confirming the laws, and for making
new laws, as the common good may require."
We have to hold them to their oath
of office and not let them usurp the
Constitution of the People.
Dominic Tringale
--- "mike.oneil@juno.com"
<mike.oneil@JUNO.COM wrote:
From Ned Holstein of Fathers
and Families:
The Judiciary Committee of the Massachusetts
Legislature held public hearings today
on 77 bills. The Fathers & Families
Legislative Affairs Committee screened
all 77, and identified four that required
our testimony. Three of them concern
209A restraining orders, and the fourth
concerns changing a child's name.
Here is the gist of our testimony.
SB975, "An Act Relative to Teen
Violence" The existing 209A law
applies not only to household members,
but people who "are or have been
in a substantive dating or engagement
relationship." SB975 adds language
in Section 1 referring only to "a
dating relationship," instead
of a substantive dating relationship.
We opposed this bill because it would
make the language of the law internally
inconsistent; more important, it would
open up the restraining order process
to people who had only dated once,
even if that occurred a long time
ago.
SB1050, "An Act Relative to Abuse
Prevention" Suppose a police
officer comes to the scene of a domestic
disturbance and finds, as is often
the case, two people who both appear
to have committed a crime, such as
screaming threats at each other, throwing
things at each other, or attempting
to hurt each other. This ill-conceived
bill requires the police officer to
determine who is the "primary
aggressor," and instructs the
officer that the "preferred response"
is to arrest the "primary aggressor."
This kind of language has been enacted
in other states, usually at the request
of domestic violence advocacy organizations.
It is based on the notion that women
are rarely or never the primary aggressor,
but that even when they break laws
such as assault and battery, they
are usually acting in self-defense.
The ordinary street experience of
police officers tells us otherwise.
We opposed this bill because in practice
it is a bill that profiles a certain
class of people - males - and urges
police officers to arrest them, and
to simultaneously exonerate another
party, usually female, even though
she appears to have committed one
or more crimes. The bill does not
give the police officer any direction
on how to identify who the "primary
aggressor" is. It essentially
requires the police officer to become
judge and jury.
SB1071, "An Act Concerning Abuse
Prevention" This bill expands
the reach of the 209A restraining
order law to situations "where
one person attempts to engage the
other in a substantive dating relationship."
What, exactly, does it mean to "attempt
to engage?" Giving her your class
ring? Calling her up for a date? If
you can't define it, don't legislate
it. Also, I can see it now: some hapless,
freckled thirteen-year-old nervously
calls up the girl who has caught his
fancy, and she slams him with a restraining
order which stays on his record for
life!
HB677, "An Act Protecting a Minor's
Identity" School nurses found
themselves in a bind. Occasionally,
parents were coming to them insisting
that the child's medical school records
be kept under a name different from
that on the birth certificate. Under
existing law, the nurses have no basis
for resisting.
So they went to Representative Karyn
Polito of Worcester, and asked for
help. Representative Polito authored
a bill four years ago that simply
required the parent to go to Probate
and Family Court to get the name change
official. Fathers & Families learned
of this, and worked with Representative
Polito to protect a divorced father
from having the names of his children
changed by the custodial parent without
his knowledge or consent. The result
was a pretty good bill, which was
passed by the Massachusetts House
in the last session, but was not acted
on in the Senate.
Now, Representative Polito has re-filed
the bill. Unfortunately, it now suddenly
contains a provision by which the
custodial parent is not even required
to give notice to the non-custodial
parent of the intended name change
in certain cases of domestic violence.
We opposed the bill as written, but
will meet with Representative Polito
to see how the bill might be amended
so we can support it.
|