|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Will veto homelessness funding bill
Will keep Legislature in session until Ed reform passes
by Guy Page
Gov. Phil Scott today vowed to veto S.131, Burlington’s ban on firearms and a bill that would establish permanent funding and government programs for services to unhoused Vermonters. Neither bill has cleared the Legislature yet.
At his weekly press conference at the Vermont State House, Scott said Burlington’s charter change banning carrying guns in bars lacks prompt, effective enforcement. Also, Burlington should focus on more pressing crime problems, like illegal drugs trafficking, he said.
The Burlington firearms bill introduced by Sen. Phil Baruth (D-Chittenden) has received testimony in House Government Operations this week. Chair Matt Birong said yesterday he’s unsure of the bill’s future.
Guv will veto homeless funding bill – Gov. Scott also vowed to veto H.91, the Vermont Homeless Emergency Assistance and Responsive Transition to Housing Program passed by the House, approved by a Senate committee this week, and scheduled for a Senate floor vote.
H.91 creates a permanent government bureaucracy for emergency housing of the homeless. Ever since Covid-19 resulted in the closure of many homeless shelters and the creation of the hotel/motel housing program, funding has been parceled out through he state’s emergency assistance program. The bill would create an annual funding mechanism and build up local shelter options, using hotel/motel as a fallback when priority housing is unavailable.
No adjournment with education reform – the governor also promised to keep the Legislature in session until it passes an education reform bill with specific, acceptable student funding, district boundary, and implementation guidelines. The state constitution allows the governor to call the Legislature back into session at his discretion.
An aide to House Speaker Jill Krowinski today told VDC the Speaker, too, will keep the House in session until a reform bill is passed. He said the House is waiting on Senate action this week on H.454, the session’s signature education reform bill. The full Senate is likely to vote tomorrow or Friday, a senator told VDC today. The vote will include amendments, he said.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: State House Spotlight
“Gov. Phil Scott today vowed to veto S.131, Burlington’s ban on firearms” Good ! This should not be news. That it made it as far as it has speaks volumes about the where the the pretenders under the “Golden Dumb” have their heads !
Good, good and good!!
GOVIE had better veto this gun bill as I do not want to have to put a new nasty bumper sticker on my mailbox as to what I have to think about ..PHIL. The old one has been on display since 2018.
Governor Scott is stepping up to the plate making his intentions known to this out-of-control legislature. Thanks to the mood in place last November that nationwide got our new President elected, Governor Scott’s veto pen is back in play and speaking loudly. Thank you, Governor.
nice
Wow! He’s pretending to be a “real” Republican now. Sorry folks he should have been doing this all along as far as gun laws are concerned. I wouldn’t get too excited about him.
Yup…”Give em’ an inch…they’ll take a mile…” (Sometimes a Great Notion)
S.131 does more than prohibit firearm at bars. It includes restaurants, Inns, lodges, clubs, fairs and everywhere else that serves alcohol. Ignores proof the ONLY solution to a bad person with a gun, is a good person with a gun,
Purely, virtue signalling by Baruth that does NOTHING to address responsibility for the root case of gun violence in burlington. But I’m sure Baruth and every other progressive in Burlington feels really good about themselves. Because for them, that’s what’s really important.
Wait, what? You mean drug runners from NY & Mass won’t leave their guns in their cars when they go into a bar if this bill passes??? Huh, neither will I. 😏
Bill should be titled: “a bill to encourage those who carry firearms to carry concealed”
or more affectionately, the “keep ’em guessing” policy. Without patdowns or magnetometers at the entrance, this law is essentially unenforceable unless a firearm is exposed either deliberately or it accidentally falls out of one’s unfastened holster.
Now, this is solid common-sense thinking Guv. Thank you.
Just another law I will ignore. Just like I ignore the little sign with the circle and gun with a slash thru it at my local pharmacy or anywhere else for that matter.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The US. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it..… A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby. No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and no courts are bound to enforce it. The Supreme Court’s decision is as follows; “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed”. Norton vs Shelby County 1886 – 118 US 425 p.442.
Alexander Hamilton explains unconstitutional law in Federalist No.76; “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid”.