Amy Draeger wrote:
The Bill of Rights Defense Resolution will have to wait another council cycle for approval. It appears CM Benson neglected to have the item placed on the Intergovernmental Relations Committee agenda last cycle.

What is the length of these council cycles? Monthly?


Let's hope it's soon, and that the city council has enough spine to do the right thing. Here we are in a supposedly liberal, civil-rights loving city, in a state that, at least historically, is likewise liberal and at the forefront of civil rights. We ought to be able to do this -- especially when an extremely conservative, right-leaning state legislature, like the one in New Mexico can do it:

http://legis.state.nm.us/Sessions/03%20Regular/memorials/house/HJM040.html

> Subj: State Of New Mexico Rejects U.S. P.AT.R.I.O.T Law!

"HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 40
46th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - first session, 2003

A JOINT MEMORIAL

AFFIRMING CIVIL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES; DECLARING OPPOSITION TO FEDERAL
MEASURES THAT INFRINGE ON CIVIL LIBERTIES.

WHEREAS, the state of New Mexico is proud of its long and distinguished
tradition of protecting the civil rights and liberties of its residents;
and

WHEREAS, New Mexico has a diverse population, including immigrants and
students, whose contributions to the community are vital to its economy,
culture and civic character; and

WHEREAS, the preservation of civil rights and liberties is essential to
the well-being of a democratic society; and

WHEREAS, federal, state and local governments should protect the public
from terrorist attacks such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001
and should do so in a rational and deliberative fashion to ensure that a
new security measure will enhance public safety without impairing
constitutional rights or infringing on civil liberties; and

WHEREAS, government security measures that undermine fundamental rights
do damage to American institutions and values that the residents of New
Mexico hold dear; and

WHEREAS, the house of representatives believes that there is no inherent
conflict between national security and the preservation of liberty and
that Americans can be both safe and free; and

WHEREAS, federal policies adopted since September 11, 2001, including
provisions in Public Law 107-56, known as the USA Patriot Act, and
related executive orders, regulations and actions threaten fundamental
rights and liberties by: ..."

Read the whole thing at the link above.

Chris Johnson
Fulton



TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.

________________________________

Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

Reply via email to