I feel like I am in Dickens, the artful dodger is apparently about to leave. I repeat the question: If banning attorneys fees from people who win a lawsuit based on a blatant violation of the establishment clause, which this bill does, doesn't do anything, what is it in there for? Is it just an expression of dislike for people who happen to enforce a part of the Constitution that people on the other side don't like? What is it in there for?
Questioning the implications of a bill related to the establishment clause and attorneys' fees.
Share
More from Barney Frank
I urge staff to pay close attention to the differences in products offered by nonbank institutions and to be mindful of Congress's intent in financial reform that State consumer protection laws be preserved to the extent possible.
We should have made it much higher, $125 billion or more, and we should have indexed it.
One thing that not only Barney Frank, Ms. Barnes and also Sandra Day O'Connor, Justice O'Connor agreed on is that that Kelo decision stripped those three words out of the Fifth Amendment, 'for public use.'
Other voices in this conversation
