Last week in Norwalk, Congressman Jim Himes sat down and answered a wide range of questions from myself and other bloggers. From the situation in Egypt, to his reflections on his reelection and the currant state of the new Congress, pretty much everything was on the table during the 90 minute interview.
Here the first batch of video highlights from the interview.
The New Congress.
I asked Congressman Himes for his opinion on the his new role as a member of the minority party in the House of Representatives.
Guns
Recently Congressman Himes is a introduced The Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act (H.R. 308), which would ban the selling of high capacity gum magazines such as the one use during the assassination attempt of Congresswoman Gabriele Giffords. I asked Congressman Himes to elaborate on the bill and his thoughts on the chances of it being approved by the new Congress.
Egypt
As developments in Egypt seems to change by the minute, I asked the Congressman to give his thoughts on the Obama administration's response to the situation.
Oil subsidies During his State of the Nation address, President Barack Obama called for an end to oil subsidies. I asked Congressman Himes to give his take on the President's proposal...
...as a follow-up, I asked Congressman Himes to explain why the GOP's rhetoric about cutting spending during last year's campaign doesn't match their record as the new majority in the House of Representatives.
04.25.22 (RADIO): WSHU Latino group call on Connecticut lawmakers to open a Danbury charter school
06.03.22 (OP-ED): KUSHNER: "Career Academy ‘a great deal for Danbury"
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
The amended complaint states that plaintiffs sought to remedy the continued discriminatory and unauthorized enforcement of federal immigration laws against the Latino residents of the City of Danbury by Danbury's mayor and its police department.
Plaintiffs allege that the arrests violated their Fourth Amendment rights and the Connecticut Constitution because defendants conducted the arrests without valid warrants, in the absence of exigent circumstances, and without probable cause to believe that plaintiffs were engaged in unlawful activity. In addition, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly stopped, detained, investigated, searched and arrested plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendants violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights when they intentionally targeted plaintiffs, and arrested and detained them on the basis of their race, ethnicity and perceived national origin. Plaintiffs raise First Amendment, Due Process and tort claims.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, damages and attorneys fees.
On September 26, 2007, ten plaintiffs filed suit in response to an arrest of aday laborers at a public park in Danbury, Connecticut. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on November 26, 2007.
