user warning: Can't find record in 'cache_filter' query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM cache_filter WHERE cid = '4:69ed09f6f243e88eaff6d4118cc7c6e4' in /home/firedup/public_html/includes/ on line 27.

Proposition B

Freshman Rep. Kurt Bahr (R-O'Fallon) was on KTRS with McGraw Milhaven this morning, and gave what can only be can only be described as a train wreck, even by the already low standards of Missouri House Republicans.

In the conversation, Bahr was unable to explain why Gov. Jay Nixon ought to sign the Republicans' bill (SB113) to overhaul the measure, and stumbled and bumbled though questions about why Prop B is allegedly unconstitutional.  When asked by McGraw why he voted for the overhaul despite the fact that 62% of the voters in his district supported Prop B in November, Bahr boldly declared the law unconstitutional and belittled the "whims" of his constituents.  In his mind, an unspecified "rule" states that "our laws trump the wills of the majority, or the wills and the passions or the people at time."

Listen to the whole train wreck here:

In the interview, Bahr claims that SB113

repeals only one part of Prop B, and that one part is the cap of 50 dogs, which is unconstitutional....I could not vote against Senate Bill 113 when all it did was increase funding to protect dogs, which was the stated purpose of Prop B to begin with, and remove that unconstitutional aspect of the 50 dog cap.

This is just not true.  Not even a little bit.

I think the 50 dog limit in Prop B is arbitrary and perhaps unnecessary when considering the safety and well-being of the animals. But as McGraw notes, we regulate a lot of industries, and Bahr's claim that this debate is only about the 50 dog cap is just false.  SB113 also changes the rules regarding breeding cycles and weakens rules for veterinarian care and exercise.  More details on the bill can be found here, here and here.

Read More »
Syndicate content



Copyright 2005-2013, Fired Up!, LLC