Over the past couple of days I have seen a few references discussing what a particular law maker intends with respect to his or her bill. I just thought I’d drop a brief note reminding folks that the subjective intent of the lawmaker is of no consequence. Only the text of the bill is going to matter when police and prosecutors and courts start trying to enforce these things. And it’s not going to matter if Rep. Q. Public testified in committee that when his bill says “up” he really means “down.”
Most recently, I saw a quote from Sen. Delph with respect to (I presume, the article doesn’t say) SB 335. Among other things, the bill would suspend a business license if the business was cited for three or more violations of hiring illegal aliens.
Bill sponsor Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, repeated his stance that the bill is not about race, ethnicity or nationality.
“It’s about one thing and one thing only, and that’s the respect for the rule of law,” he said.
Well, that’s nice that Sen. Delph did not have race on his mind when he crafted this legislation. But it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference. The fact is that the legislation will have a disproportionate impact on Hispanic residents, legal and illegal. Employers will undoubtedly be more cautious about hiring legal immigrants for fear that they’ll come under increased government scrutiny if they employ a lot of Hispanic people. At this point, I’m not trying to make an argument about whether that cost does or doesn’t outweigh the benefit of more strictly enforcing our immigration laws. I’m simply trying to point out that, if Sen. Delph doesn’t realize that this bill is necessarily at least partially about race and ethnicity, he is delusional and the bill does what the bill’s text says, regardless of his belief.
There was a similar incident involving Sen. Drozda with respect to his pharmacist bill that allows the pharmacist more or less unfettered discretion to refuse to fill a prescription based on the pharmacist’s belief that the drug might be used to cause an abortion or suicide. During the committee hearing, Sen. Drozda repeatedly said that the legislation didn’t apply to birth control. But, when pressed by Sen. Simpson to amend the bill to state explicitly that the bill didn’t apply to birth control, Sen. Drozda fought the amendment.
And, last year, while debating the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment, SJR 7, any number of its proponents were adamant that the second section of that proposal wouldn’t do what the text said it would do.
So, to the extent possible, I would urge lawmakers to read the text of the bill and make decisions more on that basis than on the representations by the bill’s author.
Plusses and minuses with government intervention into private business affairs, no?
Let’s start with a few facts, shall we?
Is there any doubt that the vast majority of illegals are from Mexico?
If so, then how do you craft legislation to fix the illegal problem that doesn’t “target” the Hispanic community?
It can’t be done.
With that said, I don’t support any legislation that effects businesses when and until there is an ironclad system set up by the government to easily tell who is and who isn’t legally allowed to work here. Until that happens, how on earth would a business know who really is an illegal?
I agree that, at this time, this law would be a hardship on legal Hispanics. In the future, maybe not.
Picking up on what Buzzcut said, does this law require a state agency or court to determine whether certain employees are “illegal” or not, which is purely a federal law question? Seems like you’ve got to leave immigration questions, and any penalties for immigration violations, up to the feds.
I have had several occasions to refer to the Indiana Code – each time, I come away with a strong desire to see us elect representatives who can both read and write clear English.
Based on the IC, we haven’t had very many of those, to date…
Depends on the Title of the Indiana Code, in my opinion. Some of the older titles — say, Title 3 (Elections) or Title 8 (Utilities) or Title 26 (Commercial Law) are fairly impenetrable. Some of the newer Titles — say, Title 9 (Motor Vehicles) or Title 25 (Professions and Occupations) or Title 34 (Civil Law and Procedure) are pretty accessible.
And, if you want a real headache, try reading anything in the United States Code. Ack!
The federal government has been crippled by tax cuts but now is supposed to deal with immigration issues on a grand scale, even in the private work place.The problem of legal vs legal immigants is a state and local issue now because that’s the first place the needy turn. No local government wants to educate non residents’ children.Public schools aren’t set up to be so generous.Neither are local assistance programs. We have made a monster: the federal goverment seems as large and invasive as it ever has been but is much less efficient having been decimated by tax cuts and cut staffings.Local and state governments can’t handle what the federal government refuses to do and even are being urged by some to cut services rather than raise taxes to provide services..Then what? Does anyone in charge see the big picture? I know ..everyone should just live on their stocks and dividends and quite whining…
I would like to believe that lawmakers are honest in response to questions about the bill’s they sponsor. But most of these responses that you are pointing to are somewhat deceptive. I am glad that others are actually reading the bill’s and calling them on it.
To be fair, I think the cases I’ve pointed to are the exception rather than the rule. And it’s probably a function of the bills attempt to legislate hot button issues that have murky philosophical underpinnings.
In the case of more nuts and bolts issues, I think any misrepresentation would mostly be inadvertent. These bills generate a lot of paper in a short amount of time. Legislators physically cannot read every page even if they were inclined to be so diligent. So, they typically divide up the work and trust members of the same political party who have some expertise in the area.
I can tell you that lobbyists who play fast and loose with the contents of bills they are pushing become ineffective very quickly once they lose the trust of the legislators. Lobbyists can spin, but they can’t lie.
An effective legislator cannot be honest about the intent of a bill,especially bills to cut taxes or any kind of social ( usually restrictive) legislation.Years ago deals were made in smoked-filled backrooms and everyone got something,but the deals are paid for in advance now. Big money would never allow a group of well-meaning legislators go hammer out a compromise in a backroom ( I realize that all legislators weren’t well-meaning back in the 50s either,but it didnt seem so official)) Compromise is considered a sell-out if an advocacy groups has given millions in campaign donations and they won’t accept compromise easily unless they see their side getting the bulk of the benefit.In my recollection this is how politics have changed from the 50s til now.Everything is bought in advance now and everyone is divided into good people and bad people,kind of a ‘democratic moralized fascism’..Kind of hard to find the words. Communication is instantaneous and no one has to scramble around or think to be an expert spokesman on anything.An 18 yr old computer whiz knows as much as someone who has spent his life slowly assimilating insights. Just click it up,no assimilation necessary anymore.
……………………
Doug wrote:Lobbyists can spin, but they can’t
lie.
But lying has no stigma politically should a candidate lie to the opposition,while letting supporters know the truth of legislation.That’s what computers help us do.
Doug, a comment was made yesterday at the SAJR7 hearing– that IN courts take the “plain language of the bill” as more important when a case comes up and that “the intent of the legislator” is much less important. True?
It was also stated that IN COurts generally do not hold other states’ courts opinions very highly. That they prefer to follow Hoosier precedent first.
Can you give me a short primer on the order/ hierarchy of what the Hoosier court system generally considers in making a decision — esp when they have to construe a law?
Sure. Typically a court will first look to the plain language of the law. Next, it will look to the courts. Whether federal courts or state courts get priority depends on whether the issue is a federal or state issue. If there is a conflict between state law and federal law, federal law governs. Within the courts it goes –
Federal:
U.S. Supreme Court
7th Circuit Court of Appeals
District Courts (Northern & Southern Districts of Indiana.)
State:
Indiana Supreme Court
Indiana Court of Appeals
Trial Court
Decisions in courts from other jurisdictions are merely advisory.
There is no real legislative history in Indiana, and it’s extremely rare for Indiana courts to go looking to statements of individual legislators for intent. Since the numerous legislators could have cast their votes with any number of intentions, the subjective intent of one or a group of legislators isn’t really that important.
Let me pose a case study:
A law clearly says XYZ, but the legislators that passed it believed that they had stated XYQ. The case goes to court and the lawmakers are called as witnesses by the plaintiffs to get the law overturned based on what the lawmakers intent was when it was passed.
Courts are more likely to discount that testimony and rely on the bare plain language, right?
Yes. In fact, I’m pretty sure I’ve seen almost exactly that case.