For this unit we did a fantasy congress which was interesting, because I got to learn about how congress men/women try to get their bills to pass.
BY DANIEL ARKINArizona Gov. Jan Brewer has vetoed a hot-button measure that would have permitted businesses in the state to deny service to gays and lesbians for religious beliefs. At a news conference at the State Capitol Wednesday evening, Brewer said the bill "could result in unintended and negative consequences." "I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve," Brewer said. Gay rights advocates gathered outside the Capitol broke out in loud cheers immediately after Brewer's announcement. The controversial bill had sparked outcry from LGBT activists and drew vocal criticism from civic leaders, business interests and state economic groups. "I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve." Sen. John McCain, R-Az., who urged Brewer to veto the bill, said Wednesday evening that he hopes "we can now move on from this controversy and assure the American people that everyone is welcome to live, work and enjoy" the state. At an event at the University of Miami, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that Brewer's veto of what Clinton called "discriminatory" legislation recognizes "that inclusive leadership is really what the 21st century is all about." Brewer Explains Why She Vetoed SB 1062NBC NEWSOpponents of the bill applauded Brewer's decision. “Discrimination has no place in Arizona, or anywhere else,” said Alessandra Soler, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. “We’re grateful that the governor has stopped this disgraceful law from taking effect, and that Arizona will remain open for business to everyone.” Sarah Kate Ellis, president of GLAAD, said Brewer "demonstrated that basic respect for LGBT people extends across party lines, and anti-LGBT bias isn't just bad politics, it's bad for business." Defenders of the measure had said it was a key safeguard of religious freedom. The lawmakers who backed it said it was intended to add another layer of protection from lawsuits to individuals who assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays and lesbians. The Center for Arizona Policy, a prominent social conservative group and an architect of the bill, said in a statement: "Today's veto of SB 1062 marks a sad day for Arizonans who cherish and understand religious liberty." In recent days, major corporations had come out strongly against the proposal. Apple, Inc., which recently announced plans to build a new manufacturing plant in Mesa, Az., was joined by American and Delta airlines, Marriot Hotels, Intel, PetSmart, Yelp, Major League Baseball and others in announcing their opposition to the bill. The bill threw Arizona's stint as host of next year's Super Bowl into jeopardy, too. The NFL had been mulling moving the game from the Phoenix-area city of Glendale if the bill were signed into law, Sports Illustrated reported. "Basic respect for LGBT people extends across party lines, and anti-LGBT bias isn't just bad politics, it's bad for business." And several Republicans — from McCain and Sen. Jeff Flake to former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, and even three state lawmakers who voted for the proposed law initially — pressed her to veto the bill. The Republican-controlled state legislature passed the measure last week. At the time, Brewer was in Washington, D.C., for the National Governors Association meeting, and she did not return to Phoenix until Tuesday. The bill would have permitted any business, church or person to cite the law as a defense in any legal action brought by the government or individual claiming discrimination. Proponents called the bill a slight adjustment to the state's existing freedom law, which does not grant protections to people based on sexual orientation. But the law would have trumped local ordinances that offer protections for LGBT individuals in places like Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson. My quiz results described me as a democrat with my top four similar people as Roseanne Barr, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. My other quiz said that i was 92% similar with democrat opinions and stances. The test results I got demonstrated that I was very liberal in the decisions that I made. I was expecting this because I'm not conservative, on the other end I have very liberal and open mind. I looked into Barack Obama's beliefs and believe in his view of wanting to help those in need of help and take from those who have enough money to feed multiple families, in order to feed those who do not have to feed themselves. By Nick Gillespie January 21, 2014 5:45 AM The Daily Beast David Remnick’s new, long profile of President Barack Obama in The New Yorker is filled with all sorts of revelatory tidbits, none more interesting than the ones about his vast ambition—“He didn’t want to be Millard Fillmore or Franklin Pierce”—and his softening, though still ambivalent, attitude toward marijuana legalization at the state level. “It’s important for it to go forward,” he said, reversing past statements that were anti-pot. With just three years left in office and a possible Republican landslide in the fall’s midterm elections, Obama must be in something close to panic mode. His health care plan seems like it’s imploding, his foreign policy and civil liberties record is awful, and the economy is still barely stumbling forward into an uncertain future. Enthusiastically winding down the federal war on pot would be popular with voters and, as important, wouldn’t require immediate cooperation from Congress. Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin tells Remnick that in 2007, Obama explained, “I have no desire to be one of those presidents who are just on the list—you see their pictures lined up on the wall. … I really want to be a President who makes a difference.” But Obama’s approval ratings are mired in the low 40s, a reality he partially—and unconvincingly—attributes to racism: “There’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president.” As HotAir’s Ed Morrissey notes, the existence of rump racists completely fail to explain Obama’s two electoral victories and his 60 percent-plus approval ratings at the start of his presidency. A far better explanation is simply that he’s failed to accomplish much of anything the public likes. But there’s one thing left Obama could do to finally become the change he wanted to be: declare a swift and honorable peace in the decades-long war on pot. The drug war in toto has been a long-running and ineffective disaster that disrespects individual autonomy, corrupts law enforcement, and undermines the rule of law. By ending the war on pot, he would be remembered as a true visionary. It wouldn’t be hard. Focus on the issues of fairness and basic common sense that already have fully 58 percent of Americans in favor of legalization. The president told Remnick that he doesn’t think marijuana “is more dangerous than alcohol.” That hasn’t stopped Obama from conducting more raids on medical marijuana dispensaries in California than George W. Bush and speaking through a drug czar who announced that “legalization is not in the president’s vocabulary.” But now Obama recognizes that, “It’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law and only a select few get punished.” About 750,000 people are arrested each year for pot, with almost nine of 10 arrests being for simple possession. Those are huge, disturbing numbers made all the more troubling by something else Obama is finally grokking. “Middle-class kids don’t get locked up for smoking pot, and poor kids do,” he told Remnick. “And African-American kids and Latino kids are more likely to be poor and less likely to have the resources and the support to avoid unduly harsh penalties.” If Obama announced that he was de-prioritizing the federal government’s war on pot—not even on all drugs, but just marijuana—he would almost certainly be joined by a growing number of libertarian Republicans who think drug policy is a state-level issue. Indeed, if Obama framed the issue explicitly in federalist terms, he could likely count on the support of characters such as Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan. As important, he wouldn’t need congressional buy-in to get this party started. It's fully within the president's power—power that he has happily exceeded when it comes to waging wars overseas and delaying aspects of Obamacare—to start the process to reclassify pot from a Schedule I drug to something more credible (a Schedule I drug is deemed to have a high potential for abuse, no known or accepted use as medicine, and no reliable safe dose). That alone would kickstart a long overdue national conversation about the costs and benefits of prohibition. |