Originally Posted by
sbrower
Also, once you become more knowledgeable about this process, you will learn that relying upon public statements by legislators is probably one of the least reliable ways to find out what a proposed law actually says.
Agreed.
Originally Posted by
sbrower
As you will see, I was absolutely correct that the provision we are discussing (touching of defined areas of the body) applies *only* to federal employees or those acting under federal law.
Except "includes" does not exclude others.
It applies to "public servant[s]". There is another definition of "public servant" elsewhere in the laws of the Great State of Texas, I'm sure, that specifies what a public servant is. The language in this law is designed to make clear that, for the purposes of this particular law, public servant "
includes" federal officers-- had it the legislature intended it to be exclusive to federal officers, the legislature would have said "[f]or purposes of Subsection (a)(2), 'public servant'
means" which would redefine it for that particular subsection.
Originally Posted by
sbrower
Before saying that someone else is wrong, about proposed legislation, it is a good idea to actually read the text.
Before saying that someone else is wrong about proposed legislation, it is a good idea to actually be familiar with the rules of statutory construction. @:-)