9/22/11 Letter to the editor from Tim Utz

9/22/11
Letter to the editor

Who Really Understands "Legislative Process"

I stand by the content in my previous "Letter to The Editor" from August
2011 without apology, correction or retraction. I hoped to engage in
spirited debate with Representative for HD 50-A Carolyn Laine, our diametric
views on the issues of America's Constitutional Republic government, purpose
and function in civil society. Such expectation were dashed by Carolyn's
August 2011 reply "Letter to the Editor", wherein Carolyn admitted the facts
I presented in my previous August 2011 "Letter to the Editor" on her
recorded vote on 2010 Legislative Special Session 2 HF0001; Carolyn also
stated "...amazed at the lack of understanding my opponent has of
legislative processes"; then degraded my intelligence.

In reply, I clearly understand the fundamental obligation the "Legislative
Process" includes compliance in whole, and not a selective application, to
the Federal and State Constitutions (the only oath taken by our state
representative). An example is Article 4, Section 17 of the Minnesota
Constitution states; Laws to embrace only one subject. No law shall embrace
more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.

2010 Legislative Special Session 2 HF0001, contained three distinct subjects
in direct violation of our state constitution Article 4, Section 17, which
our Representative should be fully aware of. The three subjects were; 1. An
IOU accounting payment delays to Health and Human Services to balance state
budget through June 2011: 2. Financial relief for areas of Minnesota
effected by flooding in 2010: 3. Financial relief for areas of Minnesota;
devastated by a summer tornado. To comply with our Minnesota Constitution
(legislative process) 2010 Legislative Special Session 2 HF0001 required
three separate bills, a simple legal/paperwork process that would provide
individual legislator accountability for their vote and clarify the intent
of the Legislature for each subject.

Based on her voting record, one might conclude that our current
Representative, consider the "one subject rule" requirement of the
"Legislative Process" to be wasteful, inefficient, cumbersome, archaic or
bothersome. Carolyn Laine had an obligation of "Oath" and "Legislative
Process" to reject 2010 Legislative Special Session 2 HF0001, voting no
until the legislation was presented in three separate bills complying with
Minnesota Constitution; anything less is an inappropriate "Legislative
Process". A Representative who disregards the basic directives in our
Constitution has no business codifying Minnesota law.

Tim Utz
4141 Stinson blvd NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
763-781-5129




Timothy David Utz
Tim Utz For MN House District 50-A in 2012
Fidelity to the Constitution, Restoring the Republic
2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people which.....
This communication is private and not for consumption by any
third party or governmental authority. The 4th amendment privacy rights
under our Federal Constitution are fully invoked with this communication
as specified in the original context and meaning of December 15, 1791.