131 House Members Miss Surprise Vote!!

reply to post by network dude

---

A few congressmen tried to do just that about during the Clinton years but it went nowhere.It was originally tried during FDR's reign and was voted down by his reps in congress. Both sides use this process for leverage and it never should have been allowed. Our founding fathers would turn over in their graves should they ever have seen this being done. If they were ever to come back some how, there would be duels on the mall over they way our present government is run because of the insult they would feel!

Zindo

Acorn funding...wow..And let us not forget it was also the 39th Anniversary
of Acorn!..Here is thier program for that festive occasion, and listed on the program, just who Acron is honoring..


anitamoncrief.blogspot.com...

Once again I see "I'm outraged"...Oh really....are you? are you pissed cause your republican or democratic figure you voted for isn't "living up" to his/her promises????...Does it make you mad?...
Well guess what GET OVER IT!!!!
If you supported this bi-opoly system we have been a slave too then your just as much to blame as the knuckle heads who think these hair ball votes up...
Don't act all up in arms this is happeneing and that if your party was in power things would be different...Guess what both of these parties are the only one who have been steering this train wreck so they are clearly to blame..There is no difference and if you voted for them your just as much to blame cause thats what has gotten us right where we are. So deal with it! maybe next election cycle you'll grow a set and vote a third party in cause if you want real change stop doing what has gotten us where we are today.

I...am...so...flippin'...angry right now.

I'm sick of this. That bill had BILLIONS going to the IMF!! Which is controversial to say the least. That surprise vote had NOTHING to do with getting the war funding through, it had EVERYTHING to do with creating a situation where the majority of the people who were vehemently against the IMF funding wouldn't have a chance to vote against it.

Hear that? Shhh....listen....hear that creaking sound? It's the sound of the integrity of the ship hull giving way...THIS SHIP IS GOING DOWN!

$%@# THOSE &*^%$@ $%@#$&*!!

I read a lot of people's posts blaming the democrats. While, in this particular case, the dems are to blame, don't think for one second that the republicans would do, and have done, the same exact thing!

Quit with the partisanship already. It just happened that with this particular bill, the pubs were against it. If it had been the reverse, then the pubs would have held the surprise vote.

The only thing anyone should be focusing on is the fact that members of congress, regardless of party affiliation, pull nasty tricks that are extremely unethical and (sorry to sound like a 3 year old) extremely unfair.

That means that thousands of voters voices just went completely unheard with the passing of this bill that

Now it goes to the senate. Will they try to pull the same crap?

[edit on 18-6-2009 by nunya13]

It's filthy, dirty, shameful power-grabbing politics. Here's another trick that is used in state legislatures:

Suppose a bill (house or senate) is defeated in committee. Towards the end of the legislative session, a legislator can take some other bill, strip ALL it's language off and substitute the DEAD bill's language. This bill, often called a "christmas tree" is often quickly passed to the floor for a vote after minimal processing by the "rules" committee. Then, the legislators (the ones who were PAID BY LOBBYISTS/SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS) wait stealthily to fire the bill through the rest of the process, on its way to become law. The safeguard, of course, is if the lobbyist or special interest groups have PAID enough $$ to the Governor who can elect to sign or veto the bill.

It stinks. It is not democracy, but rather capitalism.

Phil Graham (a Republican Senator) actually did the same thing right before Christmas Break in 1999 deregulating derivatives and complex financial instruments and many rightly contend that it was the seed that began the current financial crisis.

So claiming this as a Democrat tactic is a bit much.

en.wikipedia.org...
The Act passed the House by an overwhelming majority and passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, though it was introduced on the last day before Christmas holiday and never debated by either congressional body.

Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — was partly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis. The Act is most widely known for repealing portions of the Glass-Steagall Act, which had regulated the financial services industry


www.time.com...

He also inserted a key provision into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted over-the-counter derivatives like credit-default swaps from regulation by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Credit-default swaps took down AIG, which has cost the U.S. $150 billion thus far.

Okay I just read the whole article.

The GOP was responsible for tacking on the majority of the 127 amendments to the bill and during regular hours debating each amendment at length, thus tying up the passage of the bill.

Then they went home rather than stick around for the debate of their own amendments. If there were congressmen left there debating with aides at 8pm at night..trying to sort through 127 amendments, then hell yes the rest of congress should be there too...rather than just show up for voting.

No sympathy for these guys having to work late to actually process the 127 amendments they tacked on.

If they don't want to be present to debate and vote on their own amendments, then they shouldn't have proposed them...and frankly they shouldn't be permitted to allow aides to debate it for them and just show up when it comes to a vote. They should know what the hell they are voting for.

No sympathy at all for these guys having to work at night...

I'm ashamed to have to say that this is my government...my representatives.

They've made a mockery of Democracy.

congress.blogs.foxnews.com...

great. swell. so they don't even care that some of the lawmakers called back in were under the influence of alcohol (or drugs) when they made their decisions on the amendments...

...i don't think that's the first time, though, that someone has been under the influence while ruling over us, or making our laws for that matter...

clerk.house.gov...

81 Democrats missed the vote

55 Republicans missed the vote...

as a "Democrat" tactic it would seem to be strangely targeted at primarily excluding Democrats from voting?

Fox news is garbage.

I am simply amazed and shocked that our wonderful, democratic country is ran like this. Isn't this how the Patriot Act was passed, or am I mistaken?

My question is as follows to anyone who cares to chime in:

How can votes like this happen without anyone saying something or stopping it? I mean, if the House says no more votes will happen today, and then all of a sudden they spring a bill to vote, how is that possible?

Do Democrats and Republicans do this same type of thing to one another on a consistent basis? Doesn't anyone from either party get mad/upset and does something about it?

I believe I feel just like many of you do. It truly breaks my heart that our country is ran this way and bills are passed this way.

Is there truly no law or bill that doesn't permit for this type of thing to NOT HAPPEN? How can important and critical bills be passed this way consistently without anyone sparking an uproar?

Seriously ... how is this type of procedure allowed to happen?

On a flipside, despite if the House passes the bill, Obama still needs to sign it. Just an FYI.

(I can speculate and say similar remarks that are to follow, but I am dead serious. Is there not anything in legislation that can put a halt to this type of behavioral action?)

[edit on 18-6-2009 by Quazze]

How is this not illegal ?

How is this not on every News station in America ?


How are they able to get away with this?


And nobody will do anything about it.

I think you could empower the "Sergeant at Arms" to enforce that people will vote,

For example, during one Congressional Baseball game:

"An Appropriations bill on Civil War cotton damage was to be debated on the House floor, but a quorum was not present. Speaker Clark sent the House Sergeant at Arms to American League Field to return the Members to the House chamber."

en.wikipedia.org...

He could then issue the penalties. I don't know much about this "Sergeant at Arms" person, but it sounds like you already have a system in place there that could be used.

It sounds like you have some sort of system in place, it seems to rely on simple majority, See this:

en.wikipedia.org...-busting_in_the_United_States


[edit on 18-6-2009 by jimminycricket]

reply to post by tsloan

---

Did you vote? For whom?

reply to post by maybereal11

---

Actually a large number of Democrats have turned on Obama on many issues. But then you know that?

Yes..Some Democrats have voiced opposition to Obama...How does that relate to my post?

There are folks posting echoing FOX claiming that this was a Democrat ploy to disenfranchise the GOP vote.... that it was a partisan manuever.

It was not...as the vote totals show

clerk.house.gov...

81 Democrats missed the vote

55 Republicans missed the vote...

It was premised in frustration that the house comittee was stuck there late into the night debating and giving required airtime to 127 amendments...

While those that actually attached those amendments went home to eat etc.

If they wrote the amendments knowing full well the delay it would create then they should be present to debate each and every one rather than leaving it to the committe and aides.

THAT is why they were called back in.

IF the comittee wanted to disinfranchise the vote they could have immediately moved to a vote rather than afford the 45 minutes for whoever actually cared to return.

As it stands MORE DEMOCRATS were left out of the vote by not returning than Republicans.

No ploy, no partisanship..just a frustrated manuever by the Comittee.

Was it fair...probably not. But 127 amendments to the bill...that's not fair either.

AND FOX spinning it into a Democratic ploy...it doesn't hold water.

Just the facts.

FYI - I disagree with the Prez on a number of issues. I just don't think he is the anti-christ. Since taking office he has both dissapointed me and made me proud. I know black and white...good or bad..democrat or republican...binary thinking is the easiest path for a lazy intellect or an appeal to emotion, but I am able and at peace to agree with Obama on many issues while at the same time disagreeing on others.

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

Better idea. If you miss 5% of the votes, you are ineligible for re-election.

These people are supposed to be representing us, yet how many of them vote one way because they are of a certain party, or not vote at all because they just don't feel like it. The country would already be a better place if our own congress gave a crap about it, rather than lining their pockets with money from banks, corps, oil, etc.

I still say fire them all and start over, then they'll get the hint that the US citizens are serious about the future of our country.

Federalist papers number 28 by Alexander Hamilton
"The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms'.

The 2nd amendment is there for a reason.

Republocrats and the rest is just a joke. They are NOT working for your benefit 99.9% of the time.