Home > Uncategorized > U.S. HOUSE RULE 7b(1) NO COSPONSORS FOR PRIVATE BILLS VIOLATES FIRST & NINTH AMENDMENTS

U.S. HOUSE RULE 7b(1) NO COSPONSORS FOR PRIVATE BILLS VIOLATES FIRST & NINTH AMENDMENTS

Thursday, February 24, 2011 Leave a comment Go to comments

U.S House of Representatives’ Rule 7b(1) states in full:

 “The sponsor of a public bill or public resolution may name cosponsors. The name of a cosponsor added after the initial printing of a bill or resolution shall appear in the next printing of the bill or resolution on the written request of the sponsor. Such a request may be submitted to the Speaker at any time until the last committee authorized to consider and report the bill or resolution reports it to the House or is discharged from its consideration.”

You will never know about the abuses and deprivations of your Bill of Rights by the Executive, the Judicial, and the Legislative Branches of the U.S. Government until you try to exercize your procedural due process rights. So it is with the Seventh right to a civil jury trial at the corrupt U.S. District Court for the District Court for the District of Columbia or your First Amendment and Ninth Amendment right to peitition Congress with a Private Bill when you exhaust your remedies with the Executive and Judicial Branches.

In the U.S. Senate a Private Bill can have all the Senators as cosponsors but one as the sponsor for a private bill if one can be so lucky. But it is the procedural custom over at the U.S. House of Representative to prohibit cosponsors for Private Bills even though there is no explicit rule prohibiting cosponsor. How can this be? Well, after I unintentionally, but not regrettingly, annoyed the hell out of Alex Manning, Legislative Director for Rep. McCaul (R-TX-10th) with my persistence for accurate information on why there can be no cosponsors for Private Bills while advocating the merits of my Private Bill. I never take the word of a congressional staffer or a bureaucrat insisting on something he or she said is correct when he or she refuses to cite the law, regulation, or rule as the basis for their particular statement.

So, I made a call to the House Committee on the Rules and I put the question to Jo Maney, Press Secretary and spokeswoman for ranking Rules Committee Rep. David Dreier (R-CA-26th). She emailed her answer to me, intentionally providing me a written record for my purposes. Now there’s something I respect. Setting a direct answer in a written record! Her email is included here:

Wednesday, February 23, 2011
From: Jo Maney
To: Don Hamrick
SUBJECT: Rule 12, Clause 7 b (1)

States that “The sponsor of a public bill or public resolution may name cosponsors.” Because private bills are not mentioned here, they are not allowed to have cosponsors.

I hope this information helps.

Thanks –

JO MANEY
House Committee on Rules
202-225-9191

The second sentence did not logically add up with the first sentence. It doesn’t make any logical sense. Now, I am not a genius but I can change a tire. I do have common sense enough to know the difference between right and wrong, what’s reasonable and what isn’t, what’s true and what’s deceptive bullshit. So, I replied back to Jo Maney by email:

Wednesday, February 23, 2011
From: Don Hamrick
To: Jo Maney
SUBJECT: PUBLIC COMPLAINT TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE RULES AGAINST RULE 7b(1)
ATTACHED: HAMRICK PRIVATE BILL FOR 112TH CONGRESS.pdf (7689KB)

Thank you for your prompt information.

 COMPLAINT TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE RULES
AGAINST RULE 7b(1)

MY COMPLAINT: Rule 7b(1) violates the First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

 EVIDENCE: Attached is my Private Bill. Please print pages 21–28 as evidence in support of this email.

 The four graphic line charts from pages 26–28 in my attached Private Bill are the products of my own research on the number of public and private laws passed by every Congress from 1789 to December 22, 2010.

PAGES 21-28 FROM MY PRIVATE BILL

SECTION 3. FINDINGS OF CONGRESS—AS TO THE PRIVATE BILL AS A LEGISLATIVE REMEDY

(A). CONGRESS FINDS MELANIE BUCK, THE DECLINE OF PRIVATE LAWS, SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION, DECEMBER 1, 2010 REPRINTED HERE BY PERMISSION:[12]
Because of a quirk in the law, Adela Bailor was ineligible for compensation for the brutal attack she suffered at the hands of a felon in federal custody.

A court concluded[13] that it had no power to hold the government responsible for her attack, even while noting her case “raise[d] serious questions about the moral responsibility of the government to protect its citizens.” In its opinion, the court suggested that she had one last resort: Congress.[14]

Congress has the power to enact “private laws,” a type of legislation[15] narrowly targeted to provide benefits to specifically identified individuals (including corporate bodies) when “no other remedy is available.” Claims of ill treatment and unfair circumstances have prompted many of the 107 proposed private laws currently pending in Congress.

[13] Bailor, et al v. Salvation Army, et al, 7th Circuit, No. 94-2660 (April 3, 1995) (Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division. No. 93 C 121–Roger B. Cosbey, Magistrate Judge.) Affirmed the lower court. Conclusion: As a matter of law, we must affirm the district court. Nevertheless, we must note that the events described in this record raise serious questions about the moral responsibility of the government to protect its citizens. The tension between developing more effective means of converting a federal prisoner into a productive community member and protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens to be free from attacks by violent felons creates a difficult task that requires great wisdom and fortitude. However, when private citizens suffer the results of unsuccessful attempts to deal with this problem, private legislation for their relief would not, in appropriate cases, be an inappropriate response for a government that has as one of its main functions the security of the law-abiding citizen. Ms. Bailor, although not eligible for relief under laws of general applicability that we must administer, is free to address such a request to the political branches.
 
[14] The same question was presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) by Jessica Gonzales in Petition No. 1490-05. See, IACHR Report No. 52/07, dated July 24, 2007 at http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2007eng/USA1490.05eng.htm.

 In Ms. Bailor’s case, Rep. Julia Carson introduced legislation[16] in 1997 to give her compensation. Private laws have been used to protect private property, grant waivers for certain federal or legal requirements, provide personal compensation for transgressions by the government, and address refugee or transportation concerns. The majority of bills concern immigration cases. In theory, each private bill represents a petitioner who has exhausted all other options for redress.
 
 Although once very common, private laws are now rarely enacted into law. House of Representatives Historian Anthony Wallis suggests[17] that their decline stems from the increased ability of administrative bodies to solve these issues. Wallis also says that private provisions are sometimes included in public legislation, thus reducing the need for private laws. That seems rather rare; our review of nearly 2/3s of the 1535 private bills introduced from the 101st to 111th Congress found only 23 instances where private measures were included in public bills. Congress may be phasing out private legislation[18]because of an increasing workload, a concerns about conflicts of interest, and a lack of awareness of how to use this type of legislation.
  

[17] Devin Dwyer, Looking for a Bailout? Just Call Your Congressman: ‘Private Laws’ Attempt to Serve a Treasure Trove of Special Needs, ABC News, November 5, 2009. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-private-laws-bailout-americans-special-cases/story?id=8995047
[18] Matthew Mantel, Private Bills and Private Laws, 99 Law Library Journal 87 (2007) http://www.aallnet.org/products/pub_llj_v99n01/2007-05.pdf
 

  
Despite this decreasing frequency of enactment, Members still introduce a significant number of private laws each Congress. Many bills are reintroduced over many Congresses, although few are ultimately acted upon. For example, the legislation regarding Ms. Bailor was introduced in every Congress from the 105th through the 110th. A private bill for the relief of Kadiatou Diallo – the mother of Amadou Diallo – and her family has been introduced in each Congress since the 107th.[19] A private bill for Ibrahim Parlak,[20] a Kurdish immigrant serving jail time in America, has been introduced in each Congress since the 109th. Of the 107 private bills introduced in the 111th Congress, 63 were introduced in previous Congresses.
  

 
[19] 111th Congress: H.R. 1540 For the relief of Kadiatou Diallo, Sankerala Diallo, Ibrahima Diallo, Abdoul Diallo, Mamadou Bobo Diallo, and Mamadou Pathe Diallo. Did not become a Private law. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr1540ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr1540ih.pdf
 
[20] 111th Congress: HR 976 For the relief of Ibrahim Parlak. Did not become a Private Law. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr976ih/pdf/BILLS-111hr976ih.pdf
  

.For the 111th Congress, we examined every private law that was introduced as of October 2010 to see whether we could categorize their subject matter by Googling for the name of the person who is the subject of the bill. Of the repeat private bills that we could classify, almost all concern citizenship issues. 23 pertained to deportation issues involving illegal immigrants, 9 regarded political asylum cases, and the 6 “DREAM Act” cases involved teenagers who had been living in the United States for years without knowing that they were living in the country illegally. The remaining 6 bills compensated individuals wronged by the United States or bestowed military honors.
  
Historically, private laws could stay deportation so long as they were pending in Congress, but it is unclear whether reforms implemented between 1947 and 1971 have ended this practice.[21]
  
 Most private laws are introduced by a small number of Senators and Representatives. Senator Feinstein has the biggest share, with 13 of the 63 repeat bills currently pending.
 
For Ms. Bailor, the legislative journey appears to have ended when the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Carson, died in 2007.
 
Sooner or later, allthe private bills introduced this term will likely share the same fate. 
 

 
[21]House Document No. 109-153, A History of the Committee on the Judiciary 1813–2006, page 145. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd109-153/pdf/143-148.pdf. Browse: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/hd109-153/browse.html
 

THESE NEXT 4 CHARTS ARE
THE PRODUCTS OF MY OWN RESEARCH!

 
 
(B) CONGRESS FINDS 2010 THE UPDATE ON THE PASSAGE OF PRIVATE BILLS FOR TWO JAPANESE NATIONALS OUT OF 107 SUBMITTED PRIVATE BILLS
 
Private bills can be passed very quickly (14 days) or very slowly (1 year, 2 months) even though the subjects are the same. Here are the two private bills that became private laws in the 111th Congress:Charts 3 and 4 show a deliberate suppression of private bills to zero in the 110th Congress. That’s a 60-year decline by suppression of the First Amendment right to petition. With those charts and with the fact that cosponsors for private bills in the Senate are permitted I hereby allege that the Rule 7 b(1)’s implied prohibition of cosponsors for private bills in the House violates the First Amendment right to petition. In a speech at CPAC, Wednesday, February 11, 2011, Ron Paul said, “We’ve had way too much bipartisanship for about 60 years.” This declaration is NOT a coincidence when compared to Charts 3 and 4. If bipartisanship was involved in Rule 7 b(1) then it becomes a criminal conspiracy against rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241, causing a deprivation of rights under color of law, 18 U.S.C. § 242.
 
S. 4010. A [private] bill for the relief of Shigeru Yamada for permanent resident status became Private Law No. 111-1 on December 22, 2010. Introduced December 6, 2010. Time span of 16 days!

S. 1774. A [private] bill for the relief of Hotaru Nakama Ferschke for permanent resident status became Private Law No. 111-2 on December 22, 2010. Introduced October 13, 2009. Time span of 14 months! (1 year, 2 months).

(C). CONGRESS FINDS THE 60 YEAR DECLINE OF THE PRIVATE BILL
 
 The First Amendment right to petition the Government for redress of grievances through the Private Bill, a right under the Ninth Amendment, has steadily declined from 1950 to the present, a time span of 61 years (Charts 3 and 4), represent a deliberate congressional suppression of the right to petition is a direct threat to a government of the people, by the people, for the people of this nation.

DISCUSSION:

 
For the sake of discussion on cosponsors for private bills, the prohibition of cosponsors for private bills is not explicit but an implied prohibition by the omission of an explicit reference to private bills.
My question is shouldn’t a prohibition be an explicit prohibit? My reasoning is that simply because Rule 7b(1) does not explicitly include a reference to private bills means that cosponsors for private bills are not explicitly prohibited and therefore are implicity permitted. LOGIC: The omission of an explicit prohibition is an implicit permission, NOT an implicit prohibition, especially so when the remaining two sentences in Rule 7b(1) only refer to “the bill or resolution.”

Rule 7b(1) states in full:

“The sponsor of a public bill or public resolution may name cosponsors. The name of a cosponsor added after the initial printing of a bill or resolution shall appear in the next printing of the bill or resolution on the written request of the sponsor. Such a request may be submitted to the Speaker at any time until the last committee authorized to consider and report the bill or resolution reports it to the House or is discharged from its consideration.”

Rule 7b(1) is a problem of logic. The “public bill or public resolution” in the first sentence should be the same in two sentences that follow, or at least reduced to “a public bill or resolution.” My understanding of rulemaking is that if something is intended to be prohibited it should be explicitly prohibited by direct reference.
Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: