Judge Kane found there was a compelling interest. But not narrowly tailored. There have to be two standards: narrowly tailored and compelling interest. Narrowly tailored was not met and, consequently, this effort to jimmy around with the regulations is not going to cure the problem. What is going to happen, if the Senator is successful in defeating the amendment, is that some other plaintiff is going to have to bring some other case, at a cost of thousands in legal fees, to get this struck down one more time.
Lincoln Chafee: “Judge Kane found there was a compelling interest. But not narrowly tailored. There have to be two standards: narrowly…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing legal standards and implications of an amendment during Senate debate.
Share
More from Lincoln Chafee
I call up amendment 3014 which is at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee] proposes an amendment…
I join with Senators Frist, McCain, and others as a cosponsor of legislation to establish a Presidential line item veto. This is a fiscally prudent measure which could reduce wasteful spending and bring down our Nation's deficit. The…
I would like to explain to my colleagues why I will be voting against this legislation. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee's Near East Subcommittee, I have come to appreciate the great importance of U.S. leadership in working…
I also add that of all the talk about tax relief in this Chamber, we do not get enough talk about property tax relief. I urge your support for this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If not, the…





