Just because there is a market for horse meat in some countries does not mean the U.S. must be their supplier.
Some State legislators working to enact laws to allow horse slaughter plants to operate legally and export horse meat have included language in their bills barring litigation against it unless those bringing suit paid a substantial bond. Pro horse slaughter politicians in Tennessee are trying to do that right now. However, the Tennessee State Attorney General has something to say about that.
Chas Sisk filed a report for the Tennessean newspaper which states:
A bill that would require plaintiffs trying to halt horse slaughter facilities to post large bonds up front probably violates the state constitution, the attorney general says.
House Bill 3619, which requires people who sue horse slaughters to post a bond equal to 20 percent of the estimated cost of building a horse slaughterhouse, is constitutionally suspect under Tennessee’s Open Courts Clause, Attorney General Robert Cooper says in an opinion released Thursday.
Article 1, section 17 of Tennessee’s constitution says, “That all courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.”
Read Tennessee Attorney General Robert Cooper’s Opinion (pdf, 5 pp) >>
Yes, yes, and YES.
To use the power of the office to attempt to draft a law where wealth (or lack of) is a basis for prohibiting or seeking redress of a grievance through the courts is far outside the scope of good governance; it lays the groundwork for further tilting justice to favor those with the means to purchase it.
This doesn’t just put a helluva crimp in Tennessee state law – it violates portions of the First Amendment – which directly prohibits drafting of such laws. (That may be open to ‘interpretation’.) But beyond that I have to ask myself – what kind of ‘public servants’ would believe this bill ethical, moral or in the best interest of the Public they swore an oath to serve?
You got it Lisa. This provision is unconstitutional and would have been overturned if challenged. What’s great about this Opinion is that it will not cost anyone to challenge it. Woot!
Joke is over,Someone is looking at the Law and the Constitution of The United States.
Whoever you are. Thank You