Odd Request

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,431
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I came into work today, to find a laminated copy of something odd. It appears to be a legislative....something or other, and I'm curious to read the rest of it (its only partial, I believe). I am good at searching the net, but apparantly, not good enough. Can anyone find the rest of this:

Something from New Mexico said:
A MEMORIAL

REQUESTING CABLE TELEVISION COMPANIES TO HAVE PERMISSION FROM HOME OWNERS BEFORE INSTALLING CABLE TELEVISION ACCESS IN HOMES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
  WHEREAS, household members who want to have cable television access may order it without the approval of the home owner; and
  WHEREAS, if the cable installer is not careful, the installation may be unsightly or he may damage property that does not belong to the person who ordered the service; and WHEREAS, the cable company may be installing a service that the home owner does not want;
  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that cable television companies be encouraged to obtain the home owner's premission before installing cable television access in the home owner's residence; and
  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this memorial be transmitted to each cable television company in New Mexico.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, each line is numbered also. There are two signatures, one from S/ Raymond G. Sanchez, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and S/ Stephen R. Arias, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Thanks if anyone can help.
 
I am not a lawyer and it has been several decades since I was a member of a mock legislature, but my opinion is that it is blatantly spurious. Someone is yanking your chain. Your document mixes two types of documents, (legislation and resolution). The grammar is flaky, too.
A bill is enacting law and has a title, number, date, and sponsors at the head, like this:
SENATE BILL 743
47th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - second session, 2006
INTRODUCED BY
Linda M. Lopez
Click to expand...
A bill names the location of enactment. A bill specifies the law being created, changed, or removed. It uses the word ENACT and does not have "WHEREAS" clauses.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
Section 1. A new section of the Technology for Education Act is enacted to read:
Click to expand...
A resolution, on the other hand, expresses an opinion, not law. It has a title, location and WHEREAS clauses:
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 8
47th legislature - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - second session, 2006
INTRODUCED BY
Mary Kay Papen
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO:
WHEREAS, Section 13-6-3 NMSA 1978 requires ratification and approval of any sale,
Click to expand...
and ends with RESOLVED clauses
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that the property control division of the general services department may sell to or exchange state-
Click to expand...
http://legis.state.nm.us/lcs/
 
That should be covered in the lease or rental agreement. Why does the house need to get involved? They have nothing better to do? How about sealing the border first, then we'll talk about cable in my neighbors rental. sheesh.
 
Not to mention the alleged law has no teeth
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that cable television companies be encouraged to obtain the home owner's premission before installing cable television access in the home owner's residence
Click to expand...
'Encouraging' does not mean that one must obtain permission.

The whole thing just does not read right, I smell something fishy
 
It may just be a resolution as opposed to a law.

Legislative bodies pass these sorts of things all the time, for reasons ranging from somebody's birthday to recognizing exceptional performance by a company or industry.

I suspect it's a 'strong suggestion' that, if not heeded by the industry, could eventually be made a law later.
 
It may just be a resolution as opposed to a law.

Legislative bodies pass these sorts of things all the time, for reasons ranging from somebody's birthday to recognizing exceptional performance by a company or industry.

I suspect it's a 'strong suggestion' that, if not heeded by the industry, could eventually be made a law later.
 
New Mexico's legislative website doesn't list a second session in 2006. Is one scheduled? If so, it may be a resolution that someone is planning to submit in the second session (maybe someone got a heads up to expect it and that's where the copy came from). The only SB 743 on record for the 2006 session has nothing to do with cable companies other than technology's use in education.
 
Thanks guys. Maybe it is set for some future session. I should keep my eyes on it. Its a policy we already enforce, but I like seeing laws born from the ground up.

Still don't know why it was on my desk unless a high up was doing something to my computer....
 
Maybe some more info that could help y'all help me? I flipped it over, and there's more info:

thing said:
The Legistlature
of the
State of New Mexico

44th Legislature, 1st Session
Laws 1999
Chapter ____

HOUSE MEMORIAL 7, as amended

Introduced by
REPRESENTATIVE MIGUEL P. GARCIA
Click to expand...
 
Wow. So that was the full text. Doesn't seem like it does anything more than suggest that we follow a policy we already follow?

Sound about right?
 
Affirm. It isn't a law. To be frank, I never heard of it before, but here is the definition Arizona State University College of Law posted: http://www.law.asu.edu/library/azbills
Memorials are a legislative measure containing a request or proposal to a named recipient (President of the United States, Congress, or federal agencies). They petition a recipient to do things that the Arizona Legislature does not have jurisdiction to do itself. Memorials are merely requests and have no official standing or effect. Memorials may be presented for consideration in either one house (simple) or both houses (concurrent).
Click to expand...
- Aunt Peggy
 
SkyHog said:
Wow. So that was the full text. Doesn't seem like it does anything more than suggest that we follow a policy we already follow?

Sound about right?
Click to expand...

Yep this is legislative fodder. The repo gets it passed and then able to add it to his resume that he did something when in fact the resolution is not worth the paper it is preinted on.

I do not how much you have been involved with government but watching laws being created is like watching sausage being made. I worked on the hill for a year and saw it first hand. I still am involved with legislation in the US and some other coutries as well. In a few months you may start to see warning stickers on routers sold in California. I had a hand in that.

Before you all go moaning about warning stickers the original draft legislation was to force all manufactures of routers to create a security mechanism that would be a mandatory installation on the router so that only authorized users could access it. You know like WEP but only this time it would have to be a specific authentication mechanism that everyone would have to buy from a particular company is the sponsoring representative district. After much going back and forth we whittled it down to a warning sticker to say that routers are unsecured unless you turn security on.



I have great stories about working with the Chinese Government (the commie one) making laws that I won't go into on the web but if we meet up again I'll be happy to share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top