While there have been snippets of info leaked about what Feinstein has planned for January, are there any details as to what the folks in Colorado government have on their wish list?
Printable View
While there have been snippets of info leaked about what Feinstein has planned for January, are there any details as to what the folks in Colorado government have on their wish list?
Lots. Have you not seen the other threads?
Chris (Rep. Holbert) said that when writing a bill, there is attorney client privilege. So until the bill is brought to the floor we may not know for sure.
'Attorney client privilege' Against the public? Sounds a bit adversarial to me. Are they not supposed to be our representatives?
+1 sounds like a hot load of b.s. to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt
Yeah does sound shady. If he fears for his family's safety, maybe he should arm himself, lol! Could Feinstein done this if her bill wasn't leaked? Sorry, I'm not familiar with what exactly is allowed when writing a bill at State or National level. Never took Poli-Sci.
It has more to do with the drafting of the language of the bill than anything else. The legislators work with in-house counsel in order to draft legislation that should be legal and have the appropriate language in it do deal with whatever legal issues that might arise; where in the C.R.S. it is supposed to go; fiscal components that are required, etc. All that is done between the individual legislator and that attorney and could be considered attorney-client privilege, until such time that legislator introduces that bill for consideration.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt
OneGuy67,
Nice excuse; but I don't see why ANY of that should be hidden from public view. It is not as if the legislator(s) in question are about to be charged with a crime - though perhaps they should be...
No excuse; simply an explanation of the where and why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt
Are you arguing that attorney-client privilege should be secure everywhere for everyone, except for those in public office, or in government? How far do you extend that?
If you are supposed to be doing the people's business, there should be total transparency while so engaged. Only in your private affairs should you have an expectation of privacy. So, yes, I am, "arguing that attorney-client privilege should be secure everywhere for everyone, except for those in public office, or in government." No one forces people into public office; the opposite seems to be the case - they seek it eagerly. Perhaps a bit more transparency would discourage those with anti-Liberty agendas.
The people should have access to all the gory details of the process by which they are governed; anything less is tyranny.