In its opinion, the court wrote:

We have no statutory authority to issue a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of legislative action, or inaction, in this matter . . . The only remedy set forth in art. 48 for the failure of a joint session to act is a direction to the Governor to call a joint session or a continuance of a joint session if the joint session fails in its duty. . .The plaintiffs have not set forth any legally tenable judicial enforcement role in ensuring that the members of the joint session comply with their constitutional duties under art. 48, and . . . case law provides no enforcement mechanisms.

The Court did, however, go on to criticize the inactivity of lawmakers to vote on the measure in November:

The members of the General Court are the people's elected representatives, and each one of them has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Those members who now seek to avoid their lawful obligations, by a vote to recess without a roll call vote by yeas and nays on the merits of the initiative amendment . . . ultimately will have to answer to the people who elected them.

Gay rights groups praised Wednesday's ruling; Lee Swislow, Executive Director of Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), said in a press statement:
The court has ruled on this question repeatedly, and today’s decision is consistent with what they’ve said before: that the legislature cannot be compelled to vote. The ruling maintains the critical separation of powers between the branches of government.

The Legislature has consistently refused to insert discrimination into the Constitution. Legislators have not only the freedom, but the right and the responsibility to vote their conscience. It is never right for the majority to vote on the rights of minorities.

In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage with the high court's decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health. The proposed constitutional amendment, which has garnered over 170,000 signatures, would strictly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, though it would leave existing Massachusetts same-sex marriages intact. It would need 50 votes in the 2007 legislature with the same in 2008 to be put on the November 2008 electoral ballot. When the state legislature last considered the amendment, opponents of the measure failed to amass the 151 votes necessary to kill the matter, instead voting 109-87 to recess a joint session with the Senate until January.

China is an emerging market and after the trade mission by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and FED Chairman Ben Bernanke the opportunities for major U.S. businesses in China should expand. From manufacturing to technology and medical and financial, the opening of the door into China will continue the growth of the U.S. in that region.

Just recently Citigroup (NYSE: C) acquired a major China based financial institution by the name of the Guangdong Bank, while Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) continue to penetrate the region in all industries.

They are not concentrating on Hong Kong, they are looking at the home of the 2008 Summer Olympics Beijing and the surrounding areas including Shanghai and Shenzhen. But the small to mid sized U.S. Manufacturers and Technology companies are being left out for the time being as major U.S. corporations have not fully penetrated the region.

This presents a golden opportunity for small and mid sized U.S. businesses to expand into China as the opportunity is still vast. Once saturated by major U.S. business it may be extremely difficult for certain U.S. companies to gain any footing in China.

This is why NAMC Worldwide is organizing various U.S. Trade Delegation Events through out 2007 for specific industries. Taking U.S. Manufacturers and even smaller Financial Institutions and connecting them with the right people, organizations and businesses in China that could be an asset with them flourishing there.

David Wong
NAMC Newswire

LOS ANGELES, CA, (NAMC) - The law firm of Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P.'s  as well as some of their Asia based attorneys have been recognized for their merger and acquisition work in China as well as their work on Asia Pacific and energy projects by one of the leading guides to the legal profession, Chambers Global.

In the Chambers Global guide for 2007 the review showed that Fulbright's Asia-based corporate lawyers were very knowledgeable about business practices and governmental regulations in China. Fulbright is well known for their joint venture work in China and has been praised for its handling of joint ventures and the establishing new entities in China for their clients.

Some key points that were highlighted in this Chambers review include Fulbright's international arbitration, dispute resolution, energy and intellectual property practices. Eleven of the firm's lawyers were individually recognized in Chambers Global.

As we have mentioned on NAMC numerous time, China is an emerging market and the growth in the region will continue in 2007. The business transacted between the U.S and China will grow at a rapid rate in 2007, major U.S. corporations have already began building a foundation in that part of the world from Citigroup (NYSE: C) to Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT), they are all looking for a larger piece of the China Pie.

Smaller U.S. corporations are also in a unique position to take adavntage of the growth, this is why NAMC Trade Delegation Missions to China is quickly gaining the interest of many small and middle market U.S. based corporations forcing dedicated Trade Delegation Missions to be arranged.

The firm Fulbright & Jaworski has placed themselves in a unique position in China as well , the waters in China can sometimes be a tad bit rough and its good to know that there are organizations in law, finance and accounting that can guide companies through the rough waters.

Michael Rossi
Business News Correspondent
NAMC Newswire

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected the new federal rules for smog reduction on Friday, stating that the Environmental Protection Agency "has failed to heed the restrictions on its discretion set forth in the Act." The smog standards were introduced in 2004 and required roughly 470 counties designated as "non-attainment" areas to reduce the level of smog within a three to seventeen year period. The court said the time period did not align with the federal Clean Air Act and held that EPA enforcement was not strict enough in states where smog levels have increased.

The EPA has not yet determined if it will seek an en banc rehearing of the case, according to EPA spokeswoman Jennifer Wood, stating that the "EPA is committed to ensuring our nation's ozone air quality standards are implemented to protect public health and the environment."

Two civil rights groups filed suit in federal court Tuesday to block enforcement of a town ordinance passed in November by the Dallas suburb of Farmer's Branch requiring apartment renters to show proof of US residency and penalizing landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. The ACLU of Texas, in conjunction with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), sued to bar the city from implementing the act beginning January 12, alleging that federal immigration law preempts state and local ordinances aimed at regulating immigration, and that the law as drafted is impermissibly vague.

Some local landlords have also spoken against the ordinance, saying they are not trained to determine whether immigration papers produced by potential renters are forgeries. Two other recent lawsuits have challenged the ordinance, one filed last Friday on behalf of three apartment complexes, and one filed earlier in December alleging that the Mayor of Farmer's Branch broke the Texas Open Meetings Act during deliberations concerning the ordinance. AP has more.

Last November a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order against the town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, preventing the town from promulgating a similar landlord-tenant ordinance designed to discourage illegal immigration.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel hailed the court decision, declaring it to be “an important milestone” in efforts “to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law”. In fact, the Bush administration has repeatedly demonstrated its contempt for basic legal norms, riding roughshod over international and US law. It has pressed for the execution of Hussein as a means of demonstrating to the world that it is capable of killing its opponents with impunity.

The Appeal Court decision comes as no surprise. From start to finish, the trial of Hussein and senior figures in his Baathist regime has been a piece of political theatre with a preordained outcome. The Bush administration refused to place the former Iraqi strongman before an international tribunal, drew up the flawed rules for the Iraqi High Court and has overseen every aspect of the case via a large team of American lawyers based in the US embassy in Baghdad.

Washington’s Shiite-dominated puppet government in Baghdad has brazenly interferred in the trial, exploiting it to bolster support among its social base. Shortly after the verdict was handed down last month, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki preempted the outcome of the appeals process, telling the BBC that he expected Hussein to be hanged by the end of the year. Significantly, yesterday’s decision was first announced, not by the Appeal Court, but by a government minister—National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie.

International legal experts and human rights bodies have repeatedly criticised the legal process. In a statement issued yesterday, the US-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) described the trial as “deeply flawed” and called on the Iraqi government not to carry out the execution. A detailed 97-page HRW report on the Dujail case issued last month highlighted numerous breaches of elementary legal process, pointing to government interference in the trial. The report concluded that the court’s conduct reflected “a basic lack of understanding of fundamental fair trial principles”.