So, is this legal/Constitutional???

[I B Hankering]

Wisconsin Cops Tackle Democratic Lawmaker as He Tries to Enter Capitol


The incident occurred after a court ruling barred demonstrators from staying overnight at the Capitol in Madison to protest legislation that would strip many collective bargaining rights from state workers. Milroy wanted to retrieve clothes from his office in the building, the Associated Press reported. Video of the incident shows Milroy, dressed in a windbreaker and khakis, trying to go through a revolving door, only to be pulled back and then taken down by uniformed officers. "He works here," an unidentified voice pipes up as the irate Milroy gets to his feet.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03..._lnk1%7C204678

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Well, put it that way and you're right back into the Thirteenth Amendment problem, aren't you?

See the paradox?

If you're cutting their salary for "not doing their job" then you're violating the Wisc Constitution that says you can't cut pay for any reason.

If you're fining them for "not doing their job" then you're the using the force of law to compel them to work in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Either way you lose - and that's if you can survive a challenge about what "not doing their job" actually means and who gets to decide that question. AFAIC my Senator is doing the best damn job I've gotten out of a state politician in the last thirty years.

Like I said, the issue of the fine is a closer question since it doesn't raise the specter of personal liberty the way detention does. There's at least a colorable argument that the fine is legal. It don't think it is, but I can at least see how others jurists might disagree.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Fair enough...at least to the extent the fine exceeded their salary. But at $100/day...and some 260 working days a year...that's only $26K possible.

I'm not sure how such a fine would be considered endentured servitude since they were getting fined, against a salary that they were getting paid, for work they elected not to do.

I don't know what to say about the Wisc constitution thing...but somehow I'll bet the language is a bit more complex than "you can't cut their pay for any reason". And even us non-lawyers know there is statutory law, legislative law, law of equity, etc. I've seen lots of rulings that don't appear to follow anything based on what the language of the contract is.

Like you said...this part is not as clear as confinement...I think that's a smoke screen. Even though it does seem to me that a legislature that can pass a law that says I get paid whether I work or not doesn't quite seem right. But, there are plenty of folks who get paid for doing nothing, so what do I know.

[Rakhir]

I briefly skimmed some of the responses here and thought I would throw in my quick 2 cents on the issue.

1 Nearly all state constitutions empower the governor with the power to compel legislators to attend roll call votes in order to obtain a quorum. However, Wisconsin doesn't specifically say so, but it is generally considered to be implied to be within his scope of powers. But the sergeants at arms in both houses have this power as well under their respective house rules.

2 The governor also has the power to declare these seats as having been "vacated" since the democrat senators have abdicated their responsibilities. As such he can appoint new senators to hold those seats until special elections can be held. (The dem's are really playing with fire here as they could lose everything they still have!!!)

3 As far as the constitution is concerned with the "can't cut pay issue" I don't believe it to be relevant here as the teachers union contracts expired some time ago and they have continued to work with out one. In my humble opinion since they have walked out in these protests Gov. Walker should pull a Reagan and fire them all if they do not go back to work immediately and start hiring new teachers. I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed in other states more than willing to relocate, but in any case make all of the ones in Wisconsin re-apply for their jobs under new pay and benefit packages.

And by the way within this issue I have notice a couple of other things not being talked about. I would start arresting doctor and such for writing bogus notes for sick leave. This is a direct violation of oath and law and if it were me I would make a few examples of these charlatans and take some medical licenses away. Also I have noticed some teachers have taken their students with them to these protests. The students not really knowing why they were there. This is interesting because I will bet an entire months salary permission slips with parents signatures don't exist anywhere for the majority of these students attending with teachers! Try that any other time and see how long you stay out of jail. I would immediately start arresting these teachers for such and prosecute them with extreme prejudice! Once again a couple of examples here would make on hell of a point!

4 And my biggest issue of all is this slush fund the democrats have set up using public sector unions. And yes I said SLUSH FUND!!!!

All this screaming is more over them being call out on this. Now think about it! Wisconsin is not unique but since we are talking about this state here's roughly how is has happened. Wisconsin received a little of 700 million in stimulus monies to create new jobs. Nearly 640 million of this money went back into public sector unions to keep those people working and paying dues. Yes DUES! These dues are deducted automatically by their union structures and then used to donate/finance the campaigns of liberal democrat politicians who pass largesse from the public treasury back to the unions. This is taking money from taxpayers as large and using to kick back to their own pockets.

And yes, I have heard all the arguments that this is what corporations do. But I would argue this is money they have earned by creating a product or service and it is their money to do what they will. These public sector unions are using TAX PAYER MONEY they have not created or earned themselves. This is socialist wealth redistribution and its core.

5 I am not anti-union per se. I belong in a private sector union and have recognized some of the benefits of such. However, there should never have been unions allowed in the public sector. These people serve at the leisure of the tax payers and should be held accountable to such. If we vote in representatives to reign them in the so be it!

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by Rakhir

1 Nearly all state constitutions empower the governor with the power to compel legislators to attend roll call votes in order to obtain a quorum. However, Wisconsin doesn't specifically say so, but it is generally considered to be implied to be within his scope of powers.

It is?!?!?!?

2 The governor also has the power to declare these seats as having been "vacated" since the democrat senators have abdicated their responsibilities.

He does?!?!?!?!?

3 As far as the constitution is concerned with the "can't cut pay issue" I don't believe it to be relevant here as the teachers union contracts expired some time ago and they have continued to work with out one.

Now here you're correct. Nothing in this thread has anything to do with teachers.

And yes I said SLUSH FUND!!!! . . .

Wisconsin received a little of 700 million in stimulus monies to create new jobs. Nearly 640 million of this money went back into public sector unions to keep those people working and paying dues. Yes DUES!

POLITICAL SLUSH FUNDS!!!!!!

UNION DUES!!!!!!!

IT'S ALMOST 2012!!!!!

EVERYBODY RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jesus guys. I know San Antonio's a party town but allowing open access to hallucinogens takes it a little too far.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wisconsin Cops Tackle Democratic Lawmaker as He Tries to Enter Capitol

Just to drive home the unique political atmosphere in Wisconsin:

The lawmaker in this case is from one of the most liberal areas in the state.

The cops who tackled him are from one of the most conservative areas in the state.

After it happened both sides stepped up, apologized to each other, and admitted that they had all acted "too aggressively" during the incident.

That's how we normally do politics in Wisconsin. Shows just how weird things are around here these days.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Sisyphus]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Just to drive home the unique political atmosphere in Wisconsin:

The lawmaker in this case is from one of the most liberal areas in the state.

The cops who tackled him are from one of the most conservative areas in the state.

After it happened both sides stepped up, apologized to each other, and admitted that they had all acted "too aggressively" during the incident.

That's how we normally do politics in Wisconsin. Shows just how weird things are around here these days.

Cheers,
Mazo.

I guess I'm just a full-fledged political history nerd.... To me, the most interesting thing about all of this is that it's happening in Wisconsin. This is as state that was at the vanguard of the Progressive movement...it is the home of La Follette. The state took center-stage again as the Vietnam War protests began to heat up in the late sixties. See David Maraniss, They Marched Into Sunlight, for his account of the build-up to & the aftermath of the UW riots.

It's just very weird to me that something so reactionary...so reactionary that it's...progressive?????...is going on there now.

Strange. Very strange...

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

After it happened both sides stepped up, apologized to each other, and admitted that they had all acted "too aggressively" during the incident.

That's how we normally do politics in Wisconsin. Shows just how weird things are around here these days.

Cheers,
Mazo.

I understand completely. The cops didn't recognize him and thought he was a protestor violating their instructions.

[charlestudor2005]

This is so wrong, I almost don't know where to begin.

Originally Posted by Rakhir

I briefly skimmed some of the responses here and thought I would throw in my quick 2 cents on the issue.

1 Nearly all state constitutions empower the governor with the power to compel legislators to attend roll call votes in order to obtain a quorum. However, Wisconsin doesn't specifically say so, but it is generally considered to be implied to be within his scope of powers. But the sergeants at arms in both houses have this power as well under their respective house rules. Yeah, but under due process (remember the Constitution?), they actually have to be personally served with the writs in order for them to be enforceable. And since they can't be served except inside the WI boundaries, you're blowing smoke with this argument.

2 The governor also has the power to declare these seats as having been "vacated" since the democrat senators have abdicated their responsibilities. As such he can appoint new senators to hold those seats until special elections can be held. (The dem's are really playing with fire here as they could lose everything they still have!!!) If he actually had this power, he probably already would have done so. I'll bet he doesn't have this power.

3 As far as the constitution is concerned with the "can't cut pay issue" I don't believe it to be relevant here as the teachers union contracts expired some time ago and they have continued to work with out one. In my humble opinion since they have walked out in these protests Gov. Walker should pull a Reagan and fire them all if they do not go back to work immediately and start hiring new teachers. I'm sure there are plenty of unemployed in other states more than willing to relocate, but in any case make all of the ones in Wisconsin re-apply for their jobs under new pay and benefit packages. Actually, he probably doesn't have the authority to fire teachers. They are probably hired by the school districts. Since the Governor doesn't head the school districts, he can't fire them. He can fire state employees. He can reduce the state's payments to school districts. But he can't fire teachers.

And by the way within this issue I have notice a couple of other things not being talked about. I wonder why...because these suggestions are rediculous? I would start arresting doctor and such for writing bogus notes for sick leave. This is a direct violation of oath and law and if it were me I would make a few examples of these charlatans and take some medical licenses away. Now, there's a smart political move. Piss off Republican doctors and the Wisconsin Medical Ass. by prosecuting doctors on BS charges. You'd have to hire experts and prove that the doctors were wrong, and then you'd have to take it a step farther and prove they lied and defrauded. Good luck with that one. Also I have noticed some teachers have taken their students with them to these protests. The students not really knowing why they were there. This is interesting because I will bet an entire months salary permission slips with parents signatures don't exist anywhere for the majority of these students attending with teachers! Uh...I'll take that bet. Teachers are super scared of getting sued so they do super CYA. Try that any other time and see how long you stay out of jail. I would immediately start arresting these teachers for such and prosecute them with extreme prejudice! Once again a couple of examples here would make on hell of a point!

4 And my biggest issue of all is this slush fund the democrats have set up using public sector unions. And yes I said SLUSH FUND!!!!

All this screaming is more over them being call out on this. Now think about it! Wisconsin is not unique but since we are talking about this state here's roughly how is has happened. Wisconsin received a little of 700 million in stimulus monies to create new jobs. Nearly 640 million of this money went back into public sector unions to keep those people working and paying dues. Yes DUES! These dues are deducted automatically by their union structures and then used to donate/finance the campaigns of liberal democrat politicians who pass largesse from the public treasury back to the unions. This is taking money from taxpayers as large and using to kick back to their own pockets. OK, if you read the thread, you know that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that dues deducted from wages can only be used for collective bargaining issues. Any contributions from unions to politicians (and they do work both side of the fence) comes from monies separately raised for that purpose.

And yes, I have heard all the arguments that this is what corporations do. Who gives a flip what the corps do? You're wrong in your analysis to begin with. But I would argue this is money they have earned by creating a product or service and it is their money to do what they will. These public sector unions are using TAX PAYER MONEY they have not created or earned themselves. This is socialist wealth redistribution and its core. Believe what you like, don't be moved by the facts.

5 I am not anti-union per se. I call BS here. I belong in a private sector union and have recognized some of the benefits of such. However, there should never have been unions allowed in the public sector. My parents were teachers who were ruled by almost slave labor until the union came along. You're not going to sell this to very many folks. Especially the police and fire unions. These people serve at the leisure of the tax payers and should be held accountable to such. Actually, they serve at the pleasure of the civil service system. You wouldn't like the system w/o protections. I have first hand experience with that one. If we vote in representatives to reign them in the so be it!

[Randy4Candy]

Hell, charles, until 85% of the country become indentured servants or sharecroppers these bozos will never rest. The sad part about all of this is that people lost in middle and upper management don't realize that they're part of the 85%, not the 15%.

[TexTushHog]

If Wisconsin is like most States, the Senate voted on it's rules early in the session. Rules can be just as easily used as swords as they can as shields. That's what rules are for -- to delineate what is allowed from what is not allowed. Clearly, the rules contemplated that a certain number of legislators need to be present to conduct certain kinds of business. That, by definition, give a certain sized minority the ability to shut down that sort of business. The aggrieved Senators are using the rules that everyone agreed to in advance to play the game. What's everyone bitching about?

Just tell me the rules in advance, but once the game starts, don't change the rules and don't bitch about me playing with the rules that you gave me. If you're not smart enough to figure out how to use the rules to your full advantage, that's your fault, not mine.