The statute is unconstitutional because it allows the Sec. of State the power to resolve a dispute of the claim / lien. A dispute (other than false information) becomes a judicial matter for the court.

Furthermore, since the Financing Statement (lien) is the property of the secured party, he / she has the right to require a jury trial to determine validity of the lien.

If SB 97 is not repealed, we have no recourse to prevent injuries from gov’mt officials. Are you ready to roll-up your sleeves?

– Daniel Cobble

Also a little info on the LRC, it is not their job as they have informed us in the training sessions we have had with them to determine constitutionality, it is their job to do what a legislator wants. Legislators and anyone else paying attention draws attention to the constitutionality or lack there of it.

We support it in principle, but the first 26 cannot be changed or that will set the precedent that they can always be set in flux. Plus Section 26 pretty much says not to do this with the Bill of Rights. They are to remain intact and no law should be passed that violate them. However, they do that all the time too it seems…we do not need to begin that practice with the Bill of rights.

The reason we are trying to change it is that the U. S. Supreme Court in a 1990 decision did away with the compelling interest test and now says that all that is necessary for a law to violate religious freedom is that it be “generally applicable.” This leaves our religious freedoms in dire straits.

The Congress tried to correct this in the Religious Freedom Act of 1993, but the High Court swatted it down, but said that states could do this if they like. This has resulted in a number of states passing Religious freedom laws and constitutional amendments like SB 158.

Kentucky has not done this and needs to. Our Constitution does not have very strong protections for religious freedom, possibly because it was always protected in federal law. But now that federal courts have lowered the standard on religious freedom, the state has to do something to protect it.

With the Obama administration assailing religious freedom on all fronts, it is crucial to get this passed.

All this bill does is return us to the Madisonian understanding that prevailed before 1990 in the compelling interest standard. Putting it in the Bill of Rights is an implicit acknowledgement that religious freedom is a fundamental right.

The Legislative Research Commission checks out such things in the drafting process. They didn’t find any problem with it in this case, however, otherwise they wouldn’t have put the new language there.

If you are saying that it SHOULDN’T