Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?

[nevergaveitathought]

It can be ever changing, that will. It can fluctuate daily perhaps.

We could have, potentially, a plebecite, a direct democracy, everyone vote via Iphone, ala american idol, or we could accept polls taken by pollsters as representative of the people, or, finally, as obama himself stated, "john, we had that debate already and i won".

I, myself, would tend to agree with obama, that elections have consequences, those you like and those you don't like.

The only way we have, under our republican form of government, to assess the will of the people, is to have elections.

You may say that elections do not represent the will of all the people as only a minority vote. I say, so what?

The next election is how you properly cure the current election.

For any group of elected representatives to hide out and abandon their position of entrustment is to defeat the form of government we all have pledged allegiance to, if we have, in fact, recited that pledge freely or accepted it as ours in some way.

To run and hide is an attempt at nothing more than to defeat the will of the people as known by Americans and it is the taking of the people's vote, and the making of it worthless.

[Mazomaniac]

I assume, then, that all of those criticizing the Wisconsin Dems for "not doing their jobs" are prepared to be equally critical of Republican Senators refusing to move on nominations of federal judges for the same reasons.

See this article for some background.

Please don't be shy about jumping on these lazy Republicans for holding up the democratic process.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[I B Hankering]

The will of the people was expressed during the last election, was it not? What the absent Democrats are doing is by definition not a parliamentary maneuver, because by invoking such a term as “parliamentary maneuver” one is suggesting a legitimate and accepted procedure to accomplish a political goal. That is not the case here. In fact, what the absent Democrats are doing in Wisconsin is a felony.

Part 946.12, Section 1, of Wisconsin state law says that a class 1 felony is committed when a public official “intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer’s or employee’s office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law.”

[topsgt38801]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I assume, then, that all of those criticizing the Wisconsin Dems for "not doing their jobs" are prepared to be equally critical of Republican Senators refusing to move on nominations of federal judges for the same reasons.

See this article for some background.

Please don't be shy about jumping on these lazy Republicans for holding up the democratic process.

Cheers,
Mazo.

I have no favorites when it comes to jumping on politicians that do not do their jobs. I have chastized my republican senators and I take no prisoners when it comes to politicians. I do not care their political affiliation, if they are not doing their job or doing something they should not be doing I am an equal opportunity butt kicker. I personally do not think any of them are doing the people's business after a little exposure to the political arena whether local, state or federal. I firmly believe in term limits for all as the only tool to stop the destruction of our government.

As for the article, Democrats have been equally guilty of the same types of political shenanigans and if we throw rocks at one group, we need to throw them at all of the groups.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by topsgt38801

As for the article, Democrats have been equally guilty of the same types of political shenanigans and if we throw rocks at one group, we need to throw them at all of the groups.

This is quite possibly the single thing that you and I will ever agree on when it comes to politics, but well said.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

I assume, then, that all of those criticizing the Wisconsin Dems for "not doing their jobs" are prepared to be equally critical of Republican Senators refusing to move on nominations of federal judges for the same reasons.

See this article for some background.

Please don't be shy about jumping on these lazy Republicans for holding up the democratic process.

Although I oppose the tactics of Wisconsin's Democratic Party lawmakers, I agree with you that the practice of denying a vote by means of an anonymous hold is a cheap trick.

My view is very simple: Elections have consequences. If you don't like what politicians do, vote against 'em the next chance you get!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

To run and hide is an attempt at nothing more than to defeat the will of the people as known by Americans and it is the taking of the people's vote, and the making of it worthless.

How so?... there is another election coming soon enough, one where the people can vote out anyone they so choose.

It might not be instant gratification but the wheels of justice turn slowly.

Be patient Grasshopper......and watch whatcaya wish for. Those they throw out next go-round just might surprise you.

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

My view is very simple: Elections have consequences. If you don't like what politicians do, vote against 'em the next chance you get!

That is exactly what the voters can do. I have no idea why anyone is crying about these Senators actions. They very well might get voted out next election. Or the WI Gov might go, who knows.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

That is not the case here. In fact, what the absent Democrats are doing in Wisconsin is a felony. Part 946.12, Section 1, of Wisconsin state law says that a class 1 felony is committed when a public official “intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer’s or employee’s office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law.”

What law compells them to be there? There is no law that states they must do such and such. I saw the legal debate on Fox and Judge Napalatiano see's it different than you I B. I tend to believe the judge.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

What law compells them to be there? There is no law that states they must do such and such. I saw the legal debate on Fox and Judge Napalatiano see's it different than you I B. I tend to believe the judge.

Cited and quoted above. Need more help? http://legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/Stat0946.pdf

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

How so?... there is another election coming soon enough, one where the people can vote out anyone they so choose.

It might not be instant gratification but the wheels of justice turn slowly.

Be patient Grasshopper......and watch whatcaya wish for. Those they throw out next go-round just might surprise you.

even though i tend to like you i have to tell you that its hard to argue with you

where do you want the wheel to stop? the next election can't solve things either if the minority then runs and hides also..its ad infinitum

the next election can reverse things should it be the people's will, but once you accept the premise that it's fine to cut and run, where does that end?

and yes, the people's will is thwarted in the very first instance, uncured by any other election.

[Mazomaniac]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

In fact, what the absent Democrats are doing in Wisconsin is a felony. Part 946.12, Section 1, of Wisconsin state law says that a class 1 felony is committed when a public official “intentionally fails or refuses to perform a known mandatory, nondiscretionary, ministerial duty of the officer’s or employee’s office or employment within the time or in the manner required by law.”

Under the Wisconsin Senate Rule 73 a Senator's vote is only compelled while they are physically present at a session where a matter is put to vote.

Rules 81 and 84 allow a quorum call where Senators can be "sent for" and "brought in" but there is nothing in the rules compelling them to answer or attend to the call.

So nice try, but this doesn't apply.

BUT!!!

Since you mention it, the Wisconsin Senate Republicans ARE actually breaking the rules.

The Republicans have put out a quorum call to try and bring the Dems back in. But under Senate Rule 83 all members already present when a quorum call is made are supposed to stay in the Senate chamber with the doors locked until the missing members come in. The Republicans haven't done that. They voted for the call and then went home.

So, in fact, it's the Republican members who have committed a felony under the code section you quoted. Their presence in the chamber is a mandatory, non-discretionary act once they started a quorum call. They're the ones who are breaking the law.

I'll just assume that you're completely outraged by the blatant and felonious disregard of the law the Republicans are showing and that you'll immediately post a major rant about it here ASAP.

Cheers!
Mazo.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Under the Wisconsin Senate Rule 73 a Senator's vote is only compelled while they are physically present at a session where a matter is put to vote.

Rules 81 and 84 allow a quorum call where Senators can be "sent for" and "brought in" but there is nothing in the rules compelling them to answer or attend to the call.

So nice try, but this doesn't apply.

BUT!!!

Since you mention it, the Wisconsin Senate Republicans ARE actually breaking the rules.

The Republicans have put out a quorum call to try and bring the Dems back in. But under Senate Rule 83 all members already present when a quorum call is made are supposed to stay in the Senate chamber with the doors locked until the missing members come in. The Republicans haven't done that. They voted for the call and then went home.

So, in fact, it's the Republican members who have committed a felony under the code section you quoted. Their presence in the chamber is a mandatory, non-discretionary act once they started a quorum call. They're the ones who are breaking the law.

I'll just assume that you're completely outraged by the blatant and felonious disregard of the law the Republicans are showing and that you'll immediately post a major rant about it here ASAP.

Cheers!
Mazo.

No, your ranting is quite enough. But I would advise you, in the next election, to vote for someone who knows when and where the Wisconsin legislature assembles when it’s in session. That guy you have now seems to be a bit lost.

[topsgt38801]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

This is quite possibly the single thing that you and I will ever agree on when it comes to politics, but well said.

Cheers,
Mazo.

I bet if we sat down and talked man to man we would agree on a lot more of the issues of our system being broke and could probably find better solutions for the problems than the politicians do. That is the total problem that both sides do not want to give any they only want to take. Being a retired soldier, I know that is the type of environment that starts wars. I can see your points and I understand we have differences of opinions on many issues, but I also know if the right intent is there, nothing is insurmountable.

[Rudyard K]

I appear to be late to this party...

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

OK, I'm going to partially out myself here for the sake of the thread:

I happen to live in Wisconsin, very near Madison as a matter of fact. My state senator is actual the Dem leader. I've been down to the capitol to watch this thing live and I have to say it's one of the coolest things I've seen in a long, long time. Nothing better than democracy in the streets!

I personally don't have a dog in this fight and I'm pretty much on the fence on the union rights thing. However, I TOTALLY support what the Democrats are doing with the walkout because it's not just about union rights.

The Republicans tried to rush this thing through ala the Patriot Act.

Interesting that you chose the Patriot Act, rather than ObamaCare (since it is the more current example) as an example, but be that as it may...

It turns out that there's lots more in it besides the union killer. The bill also allows the Governor to sell the state's publicly owned power plants without competitive bidding - something that will grossly benefit the Koch brothers who literally paid his way into office. It also allows the Governor to strip Medicare and other state health benefits without the approval of the legislature. The union part is getting all the press attention, but it's about a lot more than that.

Interesting. I was unaware of that. While I'm not sure that the Gov option to sell power plants would "grossly benefit the Kochs", I agree that it has no business on this bill...nor the issues related to state health benefits.

The Republicans tried to come in and ram this thing through before the public knew what hit them. The Democrats are holding it up so that people can see what's really going on and have a chance to at least express its opinion. The state assembly is also getting into the act now. They're offering hundreds of amendments to the bill in order to stall it in that house as well. It's ballsiest showing from the state Dems I've seen in a long time.

As far as the tactics, I'm all for 'em. The reason you need a supermajority quorum for spending bills here is to prevent exactly what the Republicans tried to do. That provision is in there so you can slow down the process. The Democrats are doing the right thing by using the rule as it was intended to be used - stalling the bill and giving the public time to react to it.

This is probably where I differ most. I detest all the tactics...on both sides of the aisle. These people...all of them...are elected to pass or or defeat legislation. While I certainly agree that there does need to be adequate time to review legislation for appropriateness, these tactics are "generally" not for that purpose.


Like any governing board...there is not agreement on every issue. But the members express themsleves as articulate as they can, and try to sell their position, and they either win the minds of the other members, or they don't. The tactics really serve to defeat the concept of the "greater good comes from many minds"...not foster it.

And before we hear the inevitable whine about how it's always the Dems using such tactics: go and check out the Republican record in Congress on the appointment of cabinet members and federal judges. The same story goes on up there as well. It's just that under the federal rule you don't need to leave Washington in order to hold up the country.

No whine from me. As I said, I detest the tactics. But if you want to condem something, you have to depise the tactics, and condem the actor...no matter from where he comes.


I also read you article about the judicial appointments...and, on the surface, that also appears BS-ish. But real world stuff says that "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" and if OB ain't really squeaking much...the fact that his appointments take longer is not, in and of itself, conslusive of excessive shennanigans. But there is plenty there that has quite an odor.

Cheers,
Mazo.

[TexTushHog]

Rules can be swords or shields. I don't know the procedure in Wisconsin, but in most States, the legislative body votes on the rules the first day of the session. Rules like these are there for a purpose. They're there to 1) prevent a rump body from conducting business; and 2) to give small factions a de facto veto power over extreme actions (much like the 2/3's suspension rule in the Texas Senate).

One can debate whether such rules are good or bad. But once they rules are in place, it's pretty hard to criticize the players for using them to their utmost advantage. That's what rules of for -- to use to bludgeon your opponent with, if you can. To set the lines of what is allowed versus what is not allowed. To be the structure by which you gain advantage over your opponent. Simple as that.

Everybody agreed on the rules before the session started. They shouldn't whine now that somebody has figured out how to use them to their own ends.