The Legislator's Handbook
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Johnstone CV UM
ANTHONY JOHNSTONE University of Montana School of Law | Missoula MT 59812-6558 | (406) 243-6711 [[email protected]] [www.umt.edu/people/johnstone] EDUCATION University of Chicago Law School (Chicago, Illinois) J.D. with Honors, 1999 Articles Editor, University of Chicago Legal Forum Thomas R. Mulroy Prize for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy Mandel Legal Aid Clinic, Intensive Trial Workshop Yale College (New Haven, Connecticut) B.A. in Ethics, Politics & Economics and Geology & Geophysics, 1995 Ethics, Politics & Economics Fellowship; Richter Fellowship Staff Opinion Columnist, Yale Daily News Directed Studies Program EXPERIENCE University of Montana School of Law (Missoula, Montana) Associate Professor 2014 - present; Assistant Professor 2011 - 2014; Adjunct Professor, 2007-2009 Associate Dean for Faculty Development 2013 - 2014 Law School Merit Award, 2016 Boone Law Faculty Scholarship Award, 2016 & 2013 Native American Law Student Association Teaching Award, 2016 Robert & Pauline Poore Law Faculty Service Award, 2015 Curriculum & Instruction Partnership Award, 2015 Margery Hunter Brown Award for Teaching & Service, 2012 Courses taught: Constitutional Law, Montana Constitutional Law, Legislation: Law & Politics, Advanced Constitutional Law, Philosophy of Law, and Supreme Court Seminar Previous courses taught: Election Law, First Amendment, Public Regulation of Business State of Montana (Helena, Montana) State Solicitor / Assistant Attorney General, 2004 - 2011 Represented State in constitutional litigation; elections, nonprofits, -
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C
I BEFORE THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 Petition of: Tobacco Valley Communication, Inc. To Exclude Eureka and the Remainder CSR- ______ of North Lincoln County from the Spokane, Washington DMA and Include it in the Missoula, Montana DMA PETITION FOR SPECIAL RELIEF January 31, 2014 Michael Strand STRAND LAW FIRM, PLLC P.O. Box 21117 Billings, MT 59101 (406) 465-5792 Attorney for Tobacco Valley Communications, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Issues Presented 3 II. Brief Answers 3 Ill. Background 4 A. Tobacco Valley Communications, Eu reka and North Lincoln County 4 B. Spokane, Washington 4 c. Missoula, Montana 5 D. Kalispell, Montana 5 E. Distances 5 F. nme Zones 6 G. History of Station Carriage by Tobacco Valley 6 H. Retransmission Consent Agreements 7 IV. Governing Law 8 A. Legislative History 8 B. FederaJStatute 9 C. Prior FCC Decisions 10 V. Analysis 12 A. The Requested Modification is Consistent with Congressional Intent. 12 B. The Requested Modification is Consistent with Federal Statute. 13 VI. Standardized Evidence Approach 19 VII. Conclusion 20 VIII. List of Exhibits 22 2 Tobacco Valley Communications (hereafter "Tobacco Valley") hereby petitions the Federal Communications Commission (hereafter "FCC'') to exclude North Lincoln County, Montana, from the Spokane, Washington DMA and to include North lincoln County in the Missoula, Montana DMA. North Lincoln County, Montana, includes- but is not limited to-the communities of Eureka, Rexford, Trego, Fortine, West Kootenai and Stryker. For the purposes of administrative simplicity, Tobacco Valley recently successfully registered the entire Eureka/North Lincoln County area with the FCC as community unit MT0196 under the community name "Eureka." A copy of the registration is attached as Exhibit A. -
Will the Real Lawmakers Please Stand Up: Congressional Standing in Instances of Presidential Nonenforcement
PICKETT (DO NOT DELETE) 2/17/2016 12:23 PM Copyright 2016 by Bethany R. Pickett Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 110, No. 2 Notes and Comments WILL THE REAL LAWMAKERS PLEASE STAND UP: CONGRESSIONAL STANDING IN INSTANCES OF PRESIDENTIAL NONENFORCEMENT Bethany R. Pickett ABSTRACT—The Take Care Clause obligates the President to enforce the law. Yet increasingly, presidents use nonenforcement to unilaterally waive legislative provisions to serve their executive policy goals. In doing so, the President’s inaction takes the practical form of a congressional repeal—a task that is solely reserved for Congress under the Constitution. Presidential nonenforcement therefore usurps Congress’s unique responsibility in setting the national policy agenda. This Note addresses whether Congress has standing to sue in instances of presidential nonenforcement to realign and reaffirm Congress’s unique legislative role. In answering this question, this Note examines legislative standing precedent and argues that the Supreme Court’s reasoning supports a finding of congressional institutional standing. This Note further contends that it is normatively preferable for the judiciary to police the boundaries of each branch of government in instances of executive nonenforcement and apply the Constitution’s mandate that the President take care that the laws be faithfully executed. This maintains separation of powers and prevents one branch from unconstitutionally aggregating the power of another. AUTHOR—J.D. Candidate, Northwestern University School of Law, 2016; B.A., magna cum laude, The King’s College, 2012. Thank you to everyone on the Northwestern University Law Review who provided substantial feedback and improved this Note immeasurably. I am also overwhelmingly grateful to my family who has encouraged me in everything, and has been patient with me despite my work over countless holidays. -
Majority and Minority Leaders”, Available At
Majority and Minority Party Membership Other Resources Adapted from: “Majority and Minority Leaders”, www.senate.gov Available at: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 3: Majority and Minority Whips (Assistant Floor Leaders) Chapter 4: Complete List of Majority and Minority Leaders Chapter 5: Longest-Serving Party Leaders Introduction The positions of party floor leader are not included in the Constitution but developed gradually in the 20th century. The first floor leaders were formally designated in 1920 (Democrats) and 1925 (Republicans). The Senate Republican and Democratic floor leaders are elected by the members of their party in the Senate at the beginning of each Congress. Depending on which party is in power, one serves as majority leader and the other as minority leader. The leaders serve as spokespersons for their parties' positions on issues. The majority leader schedules the daily legislative program and fashions the unanimous consent agreements that govern the time for debate. The majority leader has the right to be called upon first if several senators are seeking recognition by the presiding officer, which enables him to offer motions or amendments before any other senator. Majority and Minority Leaders Elected at the beginning of each Congress by members of their respective party conferences to represent them on the Senate floor, the majority and minority leaders serve as spokesmen for their parties' positions on the issues. The majority leader has also come to speak for the Senate as an institution. Working with the committee chairs and ranking members, the majority leader schedules business on the floor by calling bills from the calendar and keeps members of his party advised about the daily legislative program. -
H. R. 4346 [Report No
IB Union Calendar No. 55 117TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION H. R. 4346 [Report No. 80] Making appropriations for Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES JULY 1, 2021 Mr. Ryan, from the Committee on Appropriations, reported the following bill; which was committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed A BILL Making appropriations for Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That the following sums are appropriated, out of any 4 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the 5 Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 6 30, 2022, and for other purposes, namely: VerDate Sep 11 2014 06:31 Jul 02, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4346.RH H4346 kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS 2 1 TITLE I 2 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 3 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 4 SALARIES AND EXPENSES 5 For salaries and expenses of the House of Represent- 6 atives, $1,714,996,045, as follows: 7 HOUSE LEADERSHIP OFFICES 8 For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 9 $34,949,640, including: Office of the Speaker, 10 $10,036,950, including $35,000 for official expenses of 11 the Speaker; Office of the Majority Floor Leader, 12 $3,565,870, including $15,000 for official expenses of the 13 Majority Leader; Office of the Minority Floor -
General Operators for PDF, Common to All Language Levels
STATE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH 2004 Legislative Elections By Tim Storey Before launching into the analysis of the 2004 state legislative elections, it is instructive to go back two years to the last major legislative elections. The year 2002 was a banner year for the Republican Party in legislatures; they seized eight legislative chambers and claimed bragging rights by taking the majority of legislative seats nationwide for the first time in 50 years. When it comes to state legislatures, Democrats Control of Legislative Seats bounced back big in 2004 despite their defeat at the Perhaps the parity in state legislatures is best top of the ticket where George Bush extended his understood by looking at the total number of seats stay in the White House by defeating John Kerry by held by each party. There are 7,382 total legislative a relatively close 35 electoral vote margin. The seats in the 50 states. Of those, 7,316 are held by Democrats took control of seven legislative cham- partisans from the two major political parties. Third bers and had a quasi-victory by gaining ties in both party legislators hold 16 seats, and Nebraska voters the Iowa Senate and Montana House—both con- choose the 49 senators there in a non-partisan trolled by the GOP before the election. The Demo- election. As of mid-January 2005, the difference crats also regained the title of holding the most seats between the two major parties was a miniscule one although their margin is a tiny fraction of 1 percent— seat, with the advantage going to the Democrats. -
THE LEGISLATOR and HIS ENVIRONMENT Edwaiw A
Congressional Investigations: THE LEGISLATOR AND HIS ENVIRONMENT EDwAIW A. SHILst ONGRESSIONAL investigating committees have brought about valuable reforms in American life. They have performed services which no other branch of the government and no private body could have accomplished. They have also-like any useful institution- been guilty of abuses. Like many institutional abuses, these have been products of the accentuation of certain features which have frequently contributed to the effectiveness of the investigative committee. In the following essay, we shall not concern ourselves with the description of these abuses, nor with the ways in which certain valuable practices, when pushed to an extreme, have become abuses. These abuses have included intrusions in spheres beyond the committees' terms of reference, excessive clamor for publicity, intemperate disrespect for the rights of witnesses, indiscriminate pursuit of evidence, sponsorship of injudicious and light- hearted accusations, disregard for the requirements of decorum in gov- ernmental institutions, and the use of incompetent and unscrupulous field investigators.* Here we shall take as our task the exploration of fac- tors which may assist in understanding some of these peculiarities and excesses of congressional investigations. In the view here taken these excesses arise out of the conditions of life of the American legislator: the American constitutional system itself, the vicissitudes of the political career in America, the status of the politi- cian, the American social structure and a variety of other factors. This analysis does not claim to be a complete picture of the social pattern of the American legislator; it is not intended to be an exhaustive analysis. -
New Member Pictorial Directory
NEW MEMBER PICTORIAL DIRECTORY PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION Candice S. Miller, Chairman | Robert A. Brady, Ranking Minority Member NEW MEMBER PICTORIAL DIRECTORY As of November 7, 2014, the Clerk of the House had not received certificates of election for any of the individuals listed in this directory. At the time this publication was sent to press, the following races had not been finally determined: Arizona 2nd California 7th California 9th California 16th California 17th California 26th California 52nd Louisiana 5th Louisiana 6th New York 25th Washington 4th Profiles of candidates from these districts begin on page 33. PREpaRED BY THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION Candice S. Miller, Chairman | Robert A. Brady, Ranking Minority Member TABLE OF CONTENTS Adams, Alma .........................23 Katko, John...........................21 Abraham, Ralph .......................36 Khanna, Ro...........................35 Aguilar, Pete ...........................4 Knight, Steve ..........................4 Allen, Rick ............................9 Lawrence, Brenda......................15 Amador, Tony.........................34 Lieu, Ted..............................5 Ashford, Brad .........................17 Loudermilk, Barry ......................9 Assini, Mark ..........................38 Love, Mia ............................26 Babin, Brian ..........................26 MacArthur, Tom.......................19 Beyer, Don ........................... 27 Mayo, Jamie ..........................37 Bishop, Mike .........................14 -
Legislative Process Lpbooklet 2016 15Th Edition.Qxp Booklet00-01 12Th Edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1
LPBkltCvr_2016_15th edition-1.qxp_BkltCvr00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 2:49 PM Page 1 South Carolina’s Legislative Process LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 1 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 2 October 2016 15th Edition LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 3 THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS The contents of this pamphlet consist of South Carolina’s Legislative Process , pub - lished by Charles F. Reid, Clerk of the South Carolina House of Representatives. The material is reproduced with permission. LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 4 LPBooklet_2016_15th edition.qxp_Booklet00-01 12th edition 11/18/16 3:00 PM Page 5 South Carolina’s Legislative Process HISTORY o understand the legislative process, it is nec - Tessary to know a few facts about the lawmak - ing body. The South Carolina Legislature consists of two bodies—the Senate and the House of Rep - resentatives. There are 170 members—46 Sena - tors and 124 Representatives representing dis tricts based on population. When these two bodies are referred to collectively, the Senate and House are together called the General Assembly. To be eligible to be a Representative, a person must be at least 21 years old, and Senators must be at least 25 years old. Members of the House serve for two years; Senators serve for four years. The terms of office begin on the Monday following the General Election which is held in even num - bered years on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. -
The Legislature
6 The Legislature Key Terms Ad hoc Committees (p. 241) Also known as a working legislative committee, whose mandate is time-limited. Adjournment (p. 235) The temporary suspension of a legislative sitting until it reconvenes. Auditor General (p. 228) An independent officer responsible for auditing and reporting to the legislature regarding a government’s spending and operations. Backbenchers (p. 225) Rank-and-file legislators without cabinet responsibilities or other special legislative titles or duties. Bicameral legislature (p. 208) A legislative body consisting of two chambers (or “houses”). Bill (p. 241) A piece of draft legislation tabled in the legislature. Budget (p. 236) A document containing the government’s projected revenue, expenditures, and economic forecasts. Budget Estimates (p. 237) The more detailed, line-by-line statements of how each department will treat revenues and expenditures. By-election (p. 208) A district-level election held between general elections. Coalition government (p. 219) A hung parliament in which the cabinet consists of members from more than one political party. Committee of the Whole (p. 241) Another name for the body of all legislators. Confidence convention (p. 208)The practice under which a government must relinquish power when it loses a critical legislative vote. Inside Canadian Politics © Oxford University Press Canada, 2016 Contempt (p. 224) A formal denunciation of a member’s or government’s unparliamentary behaviour by the speaker. Consensus Government (p. 247) A system of governance that operates without political parties. Crossing the floor (p. 216) A situation in which a member of the legislature leaves one political party to join another party. -
Religion, Faith and Spirituality in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
Feature Religion, Faith and Spirituality in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia This article aims to further a conversation about the role of religion, faith, and spirituality in public institutions in Canada by examining the practice of prayer in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. The authors provide a background of prayer in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, an overview of the differing customs in provincial and territorial legislative assemblies in Canada, and also public controversies and court cases which have arisen in response to these conventions. Following an analysis of prayers delivered at the opening of legislative sessions of the 2017 CanLIIDocs 247 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia from 1992 to 2016, the article concludes by comparing the content of prayers delivered to self-reported rates of religiosity, spirituality, and faith amongst the general British Columbia population. Chardaye Bueckert, Robert Hill, Megan Parisotto and Mikayla Roberts Introduction prayers delivered to self-reported rates of religiosity, spirituality, and faith amongst the general British Contemporary Canada is largely conceived of Columbia population. By examining these opening as a secular society; yet some historic religious prayers, we hope to illuminate the representation of elements remain entrenched in Canadian democratic different religions within the Legislative Assembly of institutions, including the practice of prayer in British Columbia. It is important to note that due to provincial legislatures. This article aims to further data limitations, this examination will be a “snapshot” a conversation about the role of religion, faith, and of faith-based conventions in the Legislature Assembly spirituality in public institutions in Canada by of British Columbia, rather than a comprehensive examining the practice of prayer in the Legislative analysis of how different faith groups are represented Assembly of British Columbia. -
Great Falls Planning Board
GREAT FALLS PLANNING BOARD PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN June, 1982 December, 2005 August, 1993 February, 2008 May, 1996 December, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 POLICY 1 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1 PROCESS 2 1) Identify Participants 3 2) Disseminate Information 3 3) Receive Public Input 5 4) Respond to Public Input 6 5) Document Process 7 6) Fund Process 7 7) Review Process 7 8) Relationship of Public Participation Plan to Great Falls Transit District 7 7 APPENDIX A – Public Participation List APPENDIX B – “Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-Making” (Available in hard-copy in the Planning & Community Development Office, or on the World Wide Web at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/contents.htm) INTRODUCTION/HISTORY In 1981, the Great Falls City-County Planning Board (Metropolitan Planning Organization) reviewed its citizen’s participation process to assess its overall effectiveness. The reassessment was in response to guidelines developed by the U. S. Department of Transportation and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency for citizen participation in the transportation planning process. It was concluded that a better defined and more effective citizen’s participation process was needed. As such, the Planning Board prepared a participation program which addressed and identified weaknesses and outlined the procedures to be followed in carrying out the process. With the passage of the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, an additional assessment of the Planning Board's public involvement process was conducted and resulted in the process revision dated May, 1996. On April 26, 2005, the Cascade County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution to dissolve the Great Falls City-County Planning Board and associated jurisdictional area, effective July 1, 2005.