|
Some key topics for LD 1172.
We need people to pick a topic to cover in short testimony.
All of these topics can be googled to find a wealth of information to prepare a short testimony. Testimony should be kept short. It will be much better to hear from 40 people testifying for this bill than to have 10 people that ramble on. I've found that longer testimony can irritate the committee, no matter how good the message is. Remember, there is a sort of magic in a one page document!
1) Other states that have passed this type of legislation: Key to making the committee feel they won't be the first. 2) Respond directly to Attorney General William Schneider, Assistant Attorney General Paul Stern, and Joseph R. Reisert's Op-Ed stating that Maine cannot enact legislation that is in conflict with federal law 3) Someone to testify from key industries who have experienced a federal law in their business (a) Farming, Agriculture, Home gardeners selling to neighbors (b) Fishing (c) Arts, crafts (d) Restaurants (e) Furniture, woodworkers (f) Small manufacturers selling in state (g) Identify some service providers doing in-state work (h) Construction, Building trades (i) Others? 4) Key points why states have the obligation to file this law (James Madision, etc.). 5) Kentucky resolution, Washington, Jefferson 6) Living Constitution concept vs Originalist interpretation 7) Why many lawyers will oppose it: Deliberate neglect of the Constitution in law schools, for Instance one can get a law degree from Harvard without ever taking a class in U.S. Constitutional law 8) Wickford v Filburn 1942 Supreme court case quoted me by the attorney general as to why the U.S. has the right to regulate intrastate commerce. Why this is a bad case to use: (Roosevelt stacking the court, etc.) When one talks about the details of this case, it is really apparent that this ruling was a travesty, yet our attorney general and others frequently quote this case. 9) Recent Supreme Court rulings upholding our claim of 10th amendment, commerce clause, etc. (a) Medellin v Texas (2008), Court finds that while International Treaties may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty is "self-executing"; that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law; and that, absent an act of Congress or Constitutional authority, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice. (b) Printz v U.S. (1997), In the majority opinion, Scalia refers to the "dual sovereignty" established by the U.S. Constitution that federalism is built upon. His opinion states that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow Federal regulation of international and interstate matters, not internal matters reserved to State Legislators. (c) New York v United States (1992), The federal government may not "commandeer" the state governments by directly compelling them to participate in a federal regulatory program. (d) United States v Butler (1936), ruled that making the payment of a government subsidy to a farmer conditional on the reduction of his planned crops went beyond the powers of the national government. That the act invades the reserved rights of the states. That a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production is a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. 10) Not a Democratic vs Republican Issue, an American issue (We need both parties for this bill) 11) Topic of many federal laws written by the UN, or WTO, or other Int'l bodies (treaties) 12) Specific Federal Legislation that interferes with intrastate trade (a) Food Modernization and Safety Act (b) Others - get a list and have one person for each bill
13) Are we witnessing a concerted international/federal effort to bankrupt small businesses? | 
