Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?

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... Originally Posted by Rudyard K

As I noted in a previous post in this thread, the health care reform act took eight months to pass and was the subject of the biggest debate in recent American political history.

The Patriot Act was signed into law in three days and many members of Congress - let alone members of the public - never got a chance to read it all before it became law.

Despite the ridiculous rhetoric from the right about this, the health care law had more debate than 99% of bills and we knew damn well what we were getting when it passed. The Patriot Act was set for vote within hours after it was first shown to the public.

It's not even a close comparison. What happened with the Patriot Act was a disgrace to democracy.

Cheers,
Mazo.

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.” Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I don't think this statute is written with sufficient definiteness to be enforced. There are way too many weasel words in the statute you quoted. I think it would be found to be void for vagueness.

I don't think this statute is written with sufficient definiteness to be enforced. There are way too many weasel words in the statute you quoted. I think it would be found to be void for vagueness. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Are you suggesting legislators ensured there were loopholes in laws that might pertain to them? OMG! I’m so surprised and disappointed (j/p LOL). No seriously, in these matters I really must defer to those of you who know better. You, Mazo and others on here are more expert than I in matters of law. I’m not a lawyer. It was my choice not to go into law. However, I did note that Mazo highlighted the word “nondiscretionary”; hence, I double-checked the definition to see why Mazo interpreted the word so differently than I did. After all, I wanted to make sure I had properly understood the Wisconsin law.

Now I don’t understand why any elected official would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and subject their person, family and friends to the rigors of campaigning for a public office and then choose not to perform those duties. It’s unimaginable! But we are talking about politicians. After checking said definition, I now believe a “non-discretionary duty” is any required duty that is not subject to or open to personal interpretation. Thus, as I still understand it, it is a duty that is obligatory with no personal choice in whether or not it should be done.

As if to underscore the “nondiscretionary” aspect of being an elected legislator, it seems Wisconsin’s governor (and again I do not live there and I am not an expert) can compel a legislator to be present when the legislature assembles. Yet, as we have seen, that’s somewhat problematic because the governor’s power ends at the state line. By their actions, the AWOL Democrats have admitted knowledge of this little fact and have crossed over into Illinois so as to be outside the governor’s jurisdiction. Now I might be simple, but if the governor can compel a legislator to be present, and, as in this case, the governor in fact does so, doesn’t that take away any choice—any discretion—on the part of the legislator? To me it’s sophistry to argue that such a requirement, the requirement to make one’s self present during a legislative assembly—a requirement that would otherwise have the force of law except for an imaginary line drawn on a map, is “discretionary” or open to personal choice because of an imaginary line drawn on a map. Furthermore, Mazo’s legislator, and the other missing Democrats, made campaign promises and advertised that they would serve their constituents in the Wisconsin legislature: not from an Illinois motel room? But what the hey, if the constituents, like Mazo, are happy, why should I complain? These people are not representing me.

IMO the spirit of the Wisconsin law I quoted above as written is clear, but I’m not an expert in law. Hence, I’ll accept your, and the other’s, judgment that the letter of the law is unenforceable. So, again, I’ll defer.

but I’m not an expert in law. Hence, I’ll accept your, and the other’s, judgment that the letter of the law is unenforceable. So, again, I’ll defer. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Thats all you had to say in the first place. That or just admit you were mistaken!

You a long winded feller! Originally Posted by WTF

Are you suggesting I’m too long, or, by comparison, you are too short?

Are you suggesting I’m too long, or, by comparison, you are too short? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

My apologies I B, I know as much about how long you are as you know about Wisconsin law

See, brevity and honesty minus excuses equal

Just to update what's happening up here:

This morning at 1AM the state assembly voted and passed the bill on a surprise, unannounced voice vote.

The Republican Assembly Speaker waited until all but a handful of Representatives had left the chamber, then he abruptly announced that debate had ended despite there being 15 more Democrats in line to speak. He then announced a surprise floor vote on the bill without a roll call. The Republicans then all rushed back into the chamber as a group and voted. The President then closed the vote within seconds before the Democrats could even get back into the room. Only 13 Democrats had a chance to vote before it was closed.

This is what people up here are pissed about - and after last night they're REALLY pissed. The Republicans aren't even willing to even debate this thing. There's tens of thousands of people marching around the capital building for the last couple of weeks and they still won't even think about compromise. They're just going to ram it home no matter what the people want. So much for democracy.

So it looks like the Senate Democrats did the right thing. The Republicans are also going to use every trick in the book to ram this thing through no matter what the public has to say about it. If the Senate Dems hadn't left there would have been no stopping the flood.

I'm proud of my Senator for taking a stand. He's doing exactly what I want from him.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Sounds like the Assembly Speaker is a graduate of the Pelosi/Reed school of congressional management. But not a star pupil.

What do Mubarak, Khaddafi and the Wisconsin Democratic State Senators have in common? They have all fled the country.

all i can say is hear, hear!

the right people in charge, the right outcome, finally

Just to update what's happening up here:

This morning at 1AM the state assembly voted and passed the bill on a surprise, unannounced voice vote.

The Republican Assembly Speaker waited until all but a handful of Representatives had left the chamber, then he abruptly announced that debate had ended despite there being 15 more Democrats in line to speak. He then announced a surprise floor vote on the bill without a roll call. The Republicans then all rushed back into the chamber as a group and voted. The President then closed the vote within seconds before the Democrats could even get back into the room. Only 13 Democrats had a chance to vote before it was closed.

This is what people up here are pissed about - and after last night they're REALLY pissed. The Republicans aren't even willing to even debate this thing. There's tens of thousands of people marching around the capital building for the last couple of weeks and they still won't even think about compromise. They're just going to ram it home no matter what the people want. So much for democracy.

So it looks like the Senate Democrats did the right thing. The Republicans are also going to use every trick in the book to ram this thing through no matter what the public has to say about it. If the Senate Dems hadn't left there would have been no stopping the flood.

I'm proud of my Senator for taking a stand. He's doing exactly what I want from him.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Nothing more than legislation by ambush. It doesn't even pass the smell test, much less due process muster.

Those who disagree with the passage of the healthcare legislation can't say there was no debate, and they can't say the vote was taken when the opposing party knew nothing of it. There had been 9 months of very public debate, the R's had even proposed their own bill, and the vote had been scheduled in advance. Those who are opposed are just pissed that it passed (just that I'm pissed that the Patriot Act passed).

At least the health care debate and vote were all above board. In this instance, the Rs secretly and among themselves determined when the vote would be held, kept it secret, waited until early in the the morning, then rushed in and took the vote. Hardly a democratic process.

And I applaud those dems who left the state. They are using a fully legal device to register opposition to a certain action.

And there are reasons why unions exist, and reasons why collective bargaining occurs. Our forefathers firmly believed that citizens needed protection from governments, which is why there are so many individual rights in the Constitution. Public employees will be no more than slaves, IMHO, if their collective bargaining powers are eliminated. (Full Disclosure: My parents were public school teachers prior to the unions being established.) So, if you want your children to suffer a shitty education, get rid of teachers' unions. It will drive good teachers out of the industry so they can make a living wage. And the only teachers left will be the bad ones. And watch the US education rating in the world plummet.

This morning at 1AM the state assembly voted and passed the bill on a surprise, unannounced voice vote. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

The Republican Assembly Speaker waited until all but a handful of Representatives had left the chamber, then he abruptly announced that debate had ended despite there being 15 more Democrats in line to speak. He then announced a surprise floor vote on the bill without a roll call. The Republicans then all rushed back into the chamber as a group and voted. The President then closed the vote within seconds before the Democrats could even get back into the room. Only 13 Democrats had a chance to vote before it was closed.. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Sounds like the Assembly Speaker is a graduate of the Pelosi/Reed school of congressional management. But not a star pupil. Originally Posted by pjorourke

What do Mubarak, Khaddafi and the Wisconsin Democratic State Senators have in common? They have all fled the country Originally Posted by gnadfly

all i can say is hear, hear!the right people in charge, the right outcome, finally Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

+1

I'm proud of my Senator for taking a stand. He's doing exactly what I want from him.

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Exactly....what the peanut gallery on the right fail to undestand in that the WI Gov. did not run on this issue.

Raising their insurance, yes but not this union busting crap.

The Senators are countering his BS move with one of their own. I applaud them.

[size=3][font=Times New Roman]+1


Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I B , have you gotten your WI law degree yet?.... or just a cheerleading diploma

I B , have you gotten your WI law degree yet?.... or just a cheerleading diploma Originally Posted by WTF

If he had gotten his law degree he would know that passage of the bill in the Assembly means nothing as long as the Senators are still out.

There was never any question that it was going to pass the Assembly where the Republicans have a supermajority. By doing it the way they did, however, they just made themselves look like giant douche bags. It changed nothing. It just pissed people off even more.

After the "vote" last night even the police - the most conservative union in the state and one that wouldn't even be affected by the bill - turned against the Governor and asked it's members to protest against it. The police are going to start camping out with the protesters 24/7 starting tonight.

More great politics from the right. I love watching these guys shoot themselves in their own ass with this stuff.

Cheers,
Mazo.

Nothing more than legislation by ambush. It doesn't even pass the smell test, much less due process muster.

Those who disagree with the passage of the healthcare legislation can't say there was no debate, and they can't say the vote was taken when the opposing party knew nothing of it. There had been 9 months of very public debate, the R's had even proposed their own bill, and the vote had been scheduled in advance. Those who are opposed are just pissed that it passed (just that I'm pissed that the Patriot Act passed). Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

No what pisses us off most is the way it passed -- the cram downs, the buying of votes, the delivering a 2,000+ bill in the dead of the night and voting the next day when nobody had read it, the overreaching, the hubris, I could go on. The way it was passed is the primary reason Nancy doesn't have a gavel any more.

And there are reasons why unions exist, and reasons why collective bargaining occurs. Our forefathers firmly believed that citizens needed protection from governments, which is why there are so many individual rights in the Constitution. Public employees will be no more than slaves, IMHO, if their collective bargaining powers are eliminated.

And many of those reasons why unions exist (sweat shops, starvation wages, etc.) no longer exist and others have no application whatsoever in a public employees.

The fundamental difference that everyone glosses over is that public employees work for the people, not some "blood-sucking" capitalist. When you bargain with a private company, you have opposing sides - labor and ownership (represented by management). If management gives away too much, the business can't sell its products and the company fails. Governments are monopolies, where the people are required to pay taxes -- a totally different dynamic from the private sector. Also, the "management" in a public setting is politicians who want to get elected -- and strangely, the union supports them in elections (with money and workers) if they play ball. Would it be a considered a normal labor practice for the UAW to bribe the CEO of Ford to give them a sweet deal. What if the UAW offered more than he made by working at Ford? Of course not! But that is exactly the situation you have in public sectors and why Governor Wilson is right to be doing what he has proposed.

So, if you want your children to suffer a shitty education, get rid of teachers' unions. It will drive good teachers out of the industry so they can make a living wage. And the only teachers left will be the bad ones.

But strangely, private schools, who have very good teachers, pay less. Unions and bureaucracy have driven more good teachers out of the system than lousy pay. Education pay structures with the overwhelming emphasis on retirement benefits are designed to reward the survivors, not the best teachers.

And watch the US education rating in the world plummet.

It already is. The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over, and then expecting different results.