GKar

I see Esmeralda's grips are gettin popular...

SB 3012 and its House counterpart: filed for introduction in both chambers Jan. 27, 2010. To achieve passage and a veto override in a single session...that's about as quick as you'll get a legislative solution. A judicial solution would/has taken infinitely longer. And an electoral solution...well, November is an even funnier HAHAHA away...

Notice was brought in todays session to take up the veto override in the next Senate session. Looks like that will be Wednesday. Addn'l comments also indicate that both houses will be returning next week for at least one session to wrabgle budget.

RE effective date after override: Last year, the bill was vetoed 5/28, overridden 6/3 &6/4, published to the Code 6/17, but not made effective until 7/14...does anyone remember why the delay between publishing and effective date? Did it have anything to do with the amended effectiveness clause reading "June 1", which ended up preceeding the date of actual final passage (June 4)?

I can't find it easily, but in the other restaurant bill thread I posted a link and excerpt from a recent story appearing the Tennessean and elsewhere (Kpt Times-News) describing how the ABC had recently taken a couple of token actions closing two true bars in the Nashville area due to their incredibly low % food sales (<5%, IIRC). In that article, an ABC spokesman relayed that they had been utilizing "enforcement disgression" and NOT conducting such audits and fines pursuant to an ABC BoD decision back in the 90s to do so. Should places have been paying monthly fines, etc? Yep. Have they? Nope, cause ABC has turned a blind eye OF THEIR OWN VOLITION, and NOT at the direction of or with the sanction of the legislature. In that the ABC reports to no other govt agency (only loosely to the Gov), the legislature decided to disband the current ABC and look at reforming them under either the TBI or the Dept of Revenue - ya think either one of those agencies will just walk away from fining places all the way to h**l and back?? Frankly, I hope the "new" ABC comes out with blood in their eyes, and gives all these places that have gotten a free ride for the last several years absolute living h**l. Proper and appropriate payback, I say. Hate it for 'em...

Great, now I gotta try and get THAT image outta my mind...

The "tards" in the legislature deal with political realities, which, as unpopular as some may be, are nevertheless...real. Very real. We opine philosophic about what ideally should happen, but I'm willing to bet few here have actually had to navigate in those waters, and have a full appreciation for the difficulty therein. First, in order to take on the alcohol language in OK, you'll have to do some grand restructuring of the liquor laws in TN...so, if you first want to wait for that protracted fight... Second, with perhaps even more inertia to overcome, is the historic place ithat TN legislation has placed upon property owners rights. That's why the so-called "parking lot bill" will now spend a second summer basking in ignominity...watch those sessions for a taste of the difficulty the legislature faces in dealing with property rights issues. Reading between the lines RE legislative leanings, my guess is you will not get any type of bill carry-in-restaurants bill passed in TN that does not acknowledge/perpetuate that inertia. The oft-spouted solution? "Clean house"...well, go to it. Good luck wit dat.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Bredesen covets a spot in the Obasm...and, apparently, he's getting considerable attention as a possible to head Health and Human Services. So he had liittle choice but to take the action he felt would most endear him to the Obamanation...he cares not one iota for the people of Tennessee, or for anyone's rights on any topic. He is a political animal through and through, and he did the politically motivated thing to do. While I don't think Sen. Jackson is wired this way, I would so dearly love to hear him resurrect Rep. Todd's "I'll tell him (Bredesen) what he can do with this piece of paper (the veto letter)" as said on the floor of the House during last year's override in the House. And, soon, he'll have two pieces of paper - one with which to wipe each cheek. Frankly, China can keep him...but even they would likely get sick of the foul taste he'd leave in their mouths.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment: as his departure loomed, there was a slight (albeit, very slight) chance the legislature could have wrapped up the budget and the session before they had his veto in hand. IIRC, in last year4's House override, the clerk in his introduction of the bill said something to the effect of "in accordance with House rules the notice having been received and held for 24 hours"...if that is a correct statement, the timing gets interesting, and could have played to Bredesen's hands if the session ended Thursday. Veto is issued just prior to midnight Tues, delivered to House on Wed, must sit 24 hours (to Thursday) THEN get added to calendar for that very day - possibly wouldn't have happened. However, now with the House scheduled to have joint meetings on Monday, it does seem fait accompli...so to go ahead and play out the forlorn scenario is disingenuous at the least. Then again, Phil may not have put down the newspaper article indicating he has a good shot at becoming head of HHS long enough to care anymore...

I see what you're saying...depends on how the effective date is actually defined with relation to "the 10th day". Regardless, unless the Gov/staff decides to announce it in some manner today, we likely won't know until tomorrow. In the case of the bill I cited, the Gov actually returned a letter explaining his position along with the unsigned bill. So, it seems the "unsigned" bill may be returned sometime today...we think.

I've kinda wondered all along about the date the clock actually starts... kinda like a bank deposit made after 2pm. That's not an uncommon practice with a lot of govt agencies, particularly a few large Federal ones I have some experience with.

Bills as amended do not appear on the state website - you gotta kinda piece them together by reading the individual amendments, and paying attention to which ones were attached and which ones were not. TNReb posted an excellent compilation earlier in this thread...by now, probably 15 pages back or so I'm not aware of ever seeing any actual copy of the bill as passed.

Looked at the timing of a bill with a similar outcome (gov allowed to become law without action), and with a similar enactment clause: HB 2681. It was sent to the Govs desk 4/22, and listed as "Returned by Governor without signature" on 5/5. If we apply that same timing to this bill, you get a date of 5/19 (tomorrow) for official posting of action. Now, HB 2681 goes on to indicate an effective date of 5/4, but no one would have known that until 5/5 (unless a press statement was made - in this case, I believe it wasn't made until 5/5 or later). Enrollment as Public Chapter X occurred about 1 week later (5/11, IIRC), which was also the time the effective date was actually first posted to the site. So, with that math, it seems that TODAY may actually be the Gov's drop dead date for this action, and unless something appears in the press, it may not be posted until sometime tomorrow.

Here's the Micro Compact and the EMP .40 together. They are virtually the same size - in fact, most holsters for one fit the other flawlessly.

The Springer Micro Compact is the .45 equivalent of the EMP...very nice gun.

Two different approaches to dealing with the same problem: one trying to remedy an unpopular/inconvenient posting by rendering it non-binding, the other trying to remedy it by addressing the underlying attitude/behavior. Which is "teaching a man to fish"? To me, we do ourselves and those coming after us a far greater service by taking the latter approach. If the majority of postings are, as characterized here, placed simply as a matter of convenience in response to some action enabling that convenience, then does it not seem possible that engaging the poster with viable arguments as to why that action is irresponsible/ill-thought will meet with results? Which, if successful, not only remedies the current situation but also quite likely prevents a future occurrence regardless of whateve twist-or-turn the law may take. These gains seem more valuable in the long run than continuing to play the "technicality" game - for as long as the opposition sees that as the battleground, the fight never wanes. But if we are successful in changing attitudes/behaviors of the business owners, we've just made the opposition's task immensely more difficult, all the while improving the landscape for our own. To base the major portion of our resistance on ever-tightening the definition of "proper posting" is a path that, to me, is actually selling this cause short...if we can't make the convincing arguments, what have we really gained by "being able to walk past a sign"?

Looks like legislature will be around long enough to override even an May 18 veto. Sen FWM meetings scheduled Mon and Tues next week, House Floor Mon and Thurs, and still a lot off disagreement on budget stuff. And an article RE a pending immigration bill that was revived this week indictes that it was scheduled to be taken up again May 24...

HB2459, being bantered about between the House and Senate, sunsets (dissolves) the current ABC effective June 30, 2010. That part is agreed upon by both chambers. A Senate amendment to the bill also seeks significant restrictions upon members of that commission as to their capacity to serve as lobbysits and/or representatives of establishments that are governed by the board. Statements from the floor of both chambers have expressed extreme displeasure with the way ABC has discharged their responsibilities, and indicate that a summer session will be held (after the sunset takes effect) to restructure and reimplement an ABC that works the way the legislature intends it to work. My guess would be this is a far more troublesome thing to Rayburn et al than SB 3012... The great irony is that, were it not for the controversy they themselves stirred up with Bonneymore, this HB2459 likely never happens...

In that it seems to have been a low blood sugar issue, seems unlikely he'd be unavailable for any action next week.

House Calendar and Rules today was moving bills to "the next regular calendar", which they indicated might be either Monday or Tuesday of next week. They also indicated that they would be meeting again next week, which would imply at least one more House floor session after that cmte meeting.

Sorry, didn't make that too clear...I was just trying to indicate that there is scheduled House business for Monday, so I taking that to mean they'll still be in town that long at least. Reading between the lines from the purported statement by Campfield, it seems as though the Gov may have to "do the deed" before he leaves for China...perhaps because the signed letter has to be returned to the House/Senate in a specified (short) timeframe?? IIRC, the veto override motion comes up in the message calendar. Seems like Naifeh or one of the Memphiians tried to bluster a bit last year, but Williams cut him off with a "Look, we all know how we are gonna vote, so let's just do it". Also, it seems that in either the House or Senate, the sponsor (who, I believe, brings the motion for override to the floor) made the comment from the floor about "this piece of paper (the veto letter from Bredesen) makes me so mad I'd like to tell the Governor where to put it" remark that drew a mild rebuff from the Chair. That sounds more like Todd's style than Jackson's, so I'm thinkin' it was him. EDIT: memory failure. Veto override comes up in "unfinished business", early in the floor session.

There are now two meetings of different subcommittees of the House Gov Operations committee on the calendar for next Monday.

Its not unusual for the House and Senate calendars for the next week to be blank on Tuesday, IIRC...especially as the number of committee meetings dwindles to feed legislation to the floor. But there has been precious little so far RE the budget, and I'd think, with the introduction of a GOP proposal that differs quite a bit from the Dems' still supposed to happen this week, that they'll have a hard time squeezing all the debate and goings-on into Wed and Thursday of this week.

Saw a bit of different info this morning: Gov. Bredesen will be leaving May 14 (Fri) for China, leading a Tennessee delegation at the Shanghai Exposition. Scheduled return is May 22. Can he take actions such as signing a veto while "out-of-the-office" on such an excursion, or would he have to do so prior to his departure? The latter would seem to be a good thing...

Some folks just like to push the boundaries, but then squeal like pigs when the boundaries push back. Perhaps, in order to protect others' sensitivities, the judge shoulda just given her the ***-kickin her momma forgot...