the bill is very clear on that point. I think what we have here is a red herring that is being raised. I understand what is going on, but I think it is unfortunate that we are not focusing on what the bill actually does. I have no problem with criticizing the bill, but let us focus on what this actually does.
Defending the clarity and intent of a bill during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Charles T. Canady
no one is excluded from this protections of the amendment any more than people or ideas are excluded by the words ``in God we trust'' here on the wall of this Chamber.
The gentlewoman is certainly aware that the Supreme Court has required judicial bypass. And if a judicial bypass procedure is not available, the State law is invalid and unenforceable.
More than 100 years ago our young Nation faced the first great test in its dedication to the principle that all men are free. In that Civil War more than 600,000 soldiers gave up their lives, more casualties than any other war in our…
I am not going to oppose the gentleman's amendment although I believe that there is a problem with the current system that needs to be rectified. Under the current system in many cases I believe that litigants who have a reasonable basis…
Other voices in this conversation
