Legislative Column for July 30, 2013
Missourians' Liberties — Vetoed by the Governor
My last legislative column highlighted various measures the governor rejected that would have helped create jobs and lower tax burdens on Missourians. The governor vetoed bills that would’ve helped protect your liberties. As elected officials, we are sworn into office to help defend citizens’ liberties as outlined by the U.S. Constitution and the Missouri Constitution. If we stand by and let the government infringe on people’s freedoms and enact unlawful policy, we are not doing the jobs we were elected to do. The Founding Fathers of this country designed our liberties to stand the test of time; the freedoms our great-grandparents enjoyed must be protected if our great-grandchildren are to experience them. The following bills are three initiatives vetoed that would have protected your rights as a Missouri citizen.

Protecting Citizens from Agenda 21
With the emergence of the National Blueway designations — particularly the White River Watershed National Blueway that covers property in Missouri and Arkansas — citizens are more worried than ever about the protection of their property. Although the designations are publicized as ways to help promote outdoor conservation, the deeper connotation behind these titles is government control.  When an area is labeled a National Blueway, entities in Washington, D.C., could tell you what you can or cannot do to your own property if you do not meet new regulations enacted in accordance with the National Blueway designation. These regulations raise serious concerns for farmers and whether they will be able to continue to practice their livelihoods. For more details, please see my previous Capitol Report on the topic found here. 

The National Blueway designations eerily resemble Agenda 21 — a sustainable development plan adopted in 1992 by the United Nations. It has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate, but, nevertheless, its influence has wiggled its way into our daily lives. To help protect citizens’ property rights, SB 265 was brought forth in the Missouri Senate and received bipartisan support in the Legislature; however, it was vetoed by the governor. The legislation would have prohibited the state and any political subdivision from implementing any policy recommendations that infringe on private property rights without due process and are traceable to the United Nation’s Agenda 21 or any other international law or ancillary plan of action that contravenes the federal or state constitutions.
Property rights are a real issue to Missourians, and they want to be sure the land to which they devote their livelihoods is out of the federal government’s hands.

Ensuring Consistency With Missouri and Federal Constitutions
The U.S. Constitution is the absolute law of our country; the most fundamental laws set in stone under the Bill of Rights. In our country, we follow our constitutional legal rights to ensure justice is served and citizens’ cases and trials are handled in a just manner. When rulings become muddled with foreign laws or laws inconsistent with the Missouri and U.S. constitutions, we are not acting fairly on behalf of citizens.

Senate Bill 267 would have created the Civil Liberties Defense Act. It would have mandated that any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling is unenforceable if based on a foreign law that is repugnant with our state and federal constitutions. The bill does not apply to business entities that are subject to a foreign law in a jurisdiction outside the United States and does not authorize courts to adjudicate religious matters. The legislation was vetoed by the governor in early June. It’s a shame, as this bill would have provided clarity in our judicial system.

Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights
Continuing with the subject of our constitutional rights, the Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers who lived at the infancy of our country understood the oppression that can arise from a totalitarianism government and the need to protect and defend ourselves. Again, the Second Amendment was designed to withstand the test of time. However, many people would have you believe that the right to bear arms is causing problems in our country today. Taking away a person’s constitutional rights is not the answer to solving violence, and Missouri lawmakers sought to defend the fundamental right of citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones.

House Bill 436 would have created the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which would’ve rejected all federal acts that infringe on a Missouri citizen’s rights under the Second Amendment. The legislation also aimed to protect the open carrying of a firearm in certain circumstances, would have allowed a school district to designate a staff member as a school protection officer, and lowered the concealed carry age from 21 to 19, among other provisions. Amid proposals by the federal government to hamper citizens’ Second Amendment rights, I was very disappointed by the governor’s veto. Our country was designed to have a limited, non-intrusive government, and this legislation would have helped re-establish our country’s traditional principles.

As I mentioned in my previous legislative column, these bills, if brought up by their respective sponsor and approved by a two-thirds majority in both chambers, can receive a veto override during our annual veto session, which falls on Wednesday, Sept. 11. You will be able to follow the coverage of veto session by listening to live debate available on the Missouri Senate website at www.senate.mo.gov.

I appreciate you reading this legislative report, and please don’t hesitate to contact my office at (573) 751-2108 if you have any questions. Thank you and God bless.