Suchergebnisse

The 2013 Virginia General Assembly convened January 9 and adjourned February 23. The reconvened session for the General Assembly to consider vetoes or amendments by the governorwas held April 3. During the session, the Assembly considered 2899 measures along with amendments to the 2012-14 biennial state budget. In this article, Virginia Water Central lists 143 measures in the 2013 Assembly (including nine budget or appropriations-process bills) dealing with water resources directly or indirectly. The list comes from the Legislative Information System (LIS) Web site, at http://leg1.state.va.us, in the categories indicated by sub-headings below. Bill summaries were also taken from LIS (edited in some cases for space or clarity). Bills are listed under only one category, even if LIS listed them more than once. The categories searched and the bills listed include all those with direct water relevance (such as bills in the Water and Sewer Systems category) as well as those with a potential or indirect relevance to water (such as bills dealing with land conservation and energy-efficiency, two activities that ultimately affect water resources). Water Centrals list below does not necessarily include all bills that potentially affect Virginias water resources. Within each category, bills are listed in order of their bill number, using the following abbreviations: HB = bill started in House of Delegates; HJ = joint resolution started in the House; SB = bill started in the Senate; and SJ = joint resolution started in the Senate. Numbers in the left-hand column have been added by Water Central for cross- referencing among the bills. A table at the end of the article lists several topics and bills from the 2013 Assembly that received attention in various news media. For a selection of online news articles about water-related legislation in the 2013 Assembly, please visit the Virginia Water Central News Grouper at http://vawatercentralnewsgrouper.wordpress.com/category/2013-virginia-general-assembly/.

The 2014 Virginia General Assembly (online at http://virginiageneralassembly.gov/) convened January 9 and adjourned March 8. During the session, the Assembly considered 2899 measures, the proposed biennial budget for 2014-16, and amendments to the 2012-14 budget. The General Assembly was not able to agree on a biennial budget during the regular session, so a special session convened on March 24, 2014, and amendments for the 2012-14 budget were passed that day and approved by the governor on April 1. After several weeks of disagreements among the House of Delegates, Senate, and the governor, on June 23 the budget for the upcoming biennium received final approval. The normal reconvened sessionfor the General Assembly to consider vetoes or amendments by the governorwas held April 23. In this article, Virginia Water Central lists 161 measures in the 2014 Assembly (including six budget bills) dealing with water resources directly or indirectly. The list comes from the Legislative Information System (LIS) Web site, at http://leg1.state.va.us, in the categories indicated by sub-headings below. Bill summaries were also taken from LIS (edited in some cases for space or clarity). Bills are listed under only one category, even if LIS listed them more than once. The categories searched and the bills listed include all those with direct water relevance (such as bills in the Water and Sewer Systems category) as well as those with a potential or indirect relevance to water (such as bills dealing with land conservation and energy- efficiency, two activities that ultimately affect water resources). Water Centrals list below does not necessarily include all bills that potentially affect Virginias water resources. Within each category, bills are listed in order of their bill number, using the following abbreviations: HB = bill started in House of Delegates; HJ = joint resolution started in the House; SB = bill started in the Senate; and SJ = joint resolution started in the Senate. Numbers in the left-hand column have been added by Water Central for cross-referencing among the bills. A box at the end of the article lists several topics and bills from the 2014 Assembly that received attention in various news media. For a selection of online news articles about water-related legislation in the 2014 Assembly, please visit the Virginia Water Central News Grouper at http://vawatercentralnewsgrouper.wordpress.com/category/2014-virginia-general-assembly/.

If there is any Virginia law that deserves to be called "iconic," it is Section 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which combines the religious freedom provision in Virginia's first Declaration of Rights (1776) with portions of Thomas Jefferson's Statute for Religious Liberty (1785). These two documents also inspired the religion clauses of the First amendment and are world famous. [.] This article consists of the following sections: Section one presents the content of the proposed amendment and explains the ways in which it is unclear, redundant, and otherwise poorly written. Section two addresses the issue of whether the provisions intended to protect religious expression, including prayer, are necessary and can solve the problems they are intended to solve. It also identifies the crucial challenge in cases involving religious expression - namely, determining correctly whether it is the government or a private individual or group that is expressing or promoting a religious belief or practice. This determination must be made because religious expression or advocacy by the government, but not by private individuals or groups, is prohibited by the First Amendment and Section 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights. Section three examines whether Senate Joint Resolution 287 represents an attempt to challenge and change the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the religion clauses. It focuses in particular on a provision that seeks to authorize prayers before or during meetings of legislative bodies, such as county boards of supervisors. Section four discusses the necessity for and the constitutionality of one of the provisions in the proposed amendment that is unrelated to religious expression, namely, one that exempts students from having to participate in academic work to which they have religious objections. The fifth and final section concludes that Senate Joint Resolution 287, even if written well, should be rejected because most of its provisions are unnecessary and some are either unconstitutional or will encourage state agencies, officials, or employees to take actions that will be declared unconstitutional by federal or state courts.

This article consists of the following sections: Section one presents the content of the proposed amendment and explains the ways in which it is unclear, redundant, and otherwise poorly written. Section two addresses the issue of whether the provisions intended to protect religious expression, including prayer, are necessary and can solve the problems they are intended to solve. It also identifies the crucial challenge in cases involving religious expression - namely, determining correctly whether it is the government or a private individual or group that is expressing or promoting a religious belief or practice. This determination must be made because religious expression or advocacy by the government, but not by private individuals or groups, is prohibited by the First Amendment and Section 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights. Section three examines whether Senate Joint Resolution 287 represents an attempt to challenge and change the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the religion clauses. It focuses in particular on a provision that seeks to authorize prayers before or during meetings of legislative bodies, such as county boards of supervisors. Section four discusses the necessity for and the constitutionality of one of the provisions in the proposed amendment that is unrelated to religious expression, namely, one that exempts students from having to participate in academic work to which they have religious objections. The fifth and final section concludes that Senate Joint Resolution 287, even if written well, should be rejected because most of its provisions are unnecessary and some are either unconstitutional or will encourage state agencies, officials, or employees to take actions that will be declared unconstitutional by federal or state courts.

This article consists of the following sections: Section one presents the content of the proposed amendment and explains the ways in which it is unclear, redundant, and otherwise poorly written. Section two addresses the issue of whether the provisions intended to protect religious expression, including prayer, are necessary and can solve the problems they are intended to solve. It also identifies the crucial challenge in cases involving religious expression - namely, determining correctly whether it is the government or a private individual or group that is expressing or promoting a religious belief or practice. This determination must be made because religious expression or advocacy by the government, but not by private individuals or groups, is prohibited by the First Amendment and Section 16 of the Virginia Bill of Rights. Section three examines whether Senate Joint Resolution 287 represents an attempt to challenge and change the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the religion clauses. It focuses in particular on a provision that seeks to authorize prayers before or during meetings of legislative bodies, such as county boards of supervisors. Section four discusses the necessity for and the constitutionality of one of the provisions in the proposed amendment that is unrelated to religious expression, namely, one that exempts students from having to participate in academic work to which they have religious objections. The fifth and final section concludes that Senate Joint Resolution 287, even if written well, should be rejected because most of its provisions are unnecessary and some are either unconstitutional or will encourage state agencies, officials, or employees to take actions that will be declared unconstitutional by federal or state courts.

This article will review the process by which an ethics complaint was handled in 2009 as well as the laws that passed the 2010 General Assembly. It will also examine criticisms of ethics laws in Virginia and throughout the country. Finally, this article concludes with a discussion of the current criticisms of ethics laws in Virginia and across the country.

This article will review the process by which an ethics complaint was handled in 2009 as well as the laws that passed the 2010 General Assembly. It will also examine criticisms of ethics laws in Virginia and throughout the country. Finally, this article concludes with a discussion of the current criticisms of ethics laws in Virginia and across the country.

This article surveys Virginia's initial foray into health care reform. This process began with the Virginia Health Reform Initiative, which had a significant presence in the Virginia 2011 General Assembly session. While the nascent health care reform efforts this session reflect only incremental steps, they are indicative of Virginia's direction and commitment to change. Such change, however, will carry great political and professional strife. This article highlights some examples of the challenges faced on the road to health care reform and discusses possible directions of future legislation in the Virginia General Assembly.

This article surveys Virginia's initial foray into health care reform. This process began with the Virginia Health Reform Initiative, which had a significant presence in the Virginia 2011 General Assembly session. While the nascent health care reform efforts this session reflect only incremental steps, they are indicative of Virginia's direction and commitment to change. Such change, however, will carry great political and professional strife. This article highlights some examples of the challenges faced on the road to health care reform and discusses possible directions of future legislation in the Virginia General Assembly.