It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wisconsin Senate passes resolution calling for Democrats to be taken into police custody

page: 15
41
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 


Show me the law which states a member HAS to vote.

Show me the law which prevents them from leaving the State.

You can't show me because there isn't a specific statute. Of course members have the right not to vote and the right to leave the State!

What you are saying is in your opinon, you don't think they doing what they are supposed to be doing.

Well in my opinion, as soon as Walker accepted the vacation from who he thought was a rich supporter, Walker ceased doing his job.

Let's leave the opinion on whether someone is doing their job up to the voters.







Take the political crap out of this issue and your mind will see the truth.


What you are basically saying is because they disagree with a piece of legislation they dont have to do the job they were elected for?


Think about like this what if they did not agree with anything being put forth and never came back would that be alright with you?


Because people believe in this issue they are willing to let the rule of law be placed in the back seat.



Like I said before why even have a congress?




posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 


What I am saying let the voters decide what it means to do their job.

I noticed you couldn't show me the law which states they have to vote and stay in WI.

You can't because the voters felt there wasn't a need for one.


edit on March 4th 2011 by Daughter2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daughter2
reply to post by Subjective Truth
 


What I am saying let the voters decide what it means to do their job.








So we should vote every day? We elect them to do a job and they get payed for doing that job.


What job is that you ask? To vote on pieces of legislation. And what if they dont agree with the legislation you ask? Well they can vote NO.


Well what if they vote NO and it still passes you ask? Well then the people get a chance in the next election to make changes.



Why is this simple concept so hard to understand? I believe it is because people support the idea and screw the rule of law. Lets just make the rules up to fit the agenda of the day.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Not your battle. Yeah, that's the attitude! "First they came for the Communists..."



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


What would happen to you if you didnt show up to work for
3 days in a row? Your employer would consider you either
quit or fired. So why shouldnt lawmakers face the same consequences
as we do?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Personly, I say, It's about time...

We put these people in office to spend our tax dollars on themselves and their own personal needs than our own. We allow these people to sit tax free, living like kings on our dime. ...and to top it off, they're not doing the job they're supposed to be doing. Dem or Rep... If you're in office, if you're in control of making choices that dictates how I'm supposed to live, and what I can and cannot do, you damn well better be doing your job. If I have to work my butt off for peanuts and you get the free ride (polititians), you better be doing something a whole hell of alot more important than the chiken feed I'm getting to feed my own family. If not, they shouldnt only be arrested, they should be put in prison for the remainder of their term. Treat them like criminals, like sub humans, just as they treat us. Imprisson them in a life that they cant escape and leave it to the people to elect their prison term if they dont do what they're getting treated like royalty, to do.

Nuff said.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by rangersdad
 


No not at all, our government isn't a Corpration like a job is



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by PresumedInnocent
 





Good, then corporations by your thinking should not be allowed to "sway" voters with contributions to elections. I can get on that one. No corporate money, no union money.


Oh good! Then you're on board with MoveOn.org not contributing to elections.
"
StructureThe MoveOn board is co-chaired by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd. Carrie Olson is Chief Operating Officer and a board member. Eli Pariser serves as Board President. Justin Ruben is Executive Director.

MoveOn comprises two legal entities, each organized under a different section of U.S. tax and election laws. MoveOn.org Civic Action is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation,[4][5][6][7] and was formerly known as MoveOn.org. MoveOn Civic Action focuses on education and advocacy on national issues. MoveOn.org Political Action is a federal political action committee, and was formerly known as MoveOn PAC. It contributes to the campaigns of many candidates across the country. MoveOn calls the legal structure of MoveOn Civic Action that of "a California nonprofit public benefit corporation" and MoveOn.org Political Action that of "a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation," and refers to both corporations collectively as "MoveOn".[8]

source: en.wikipedia.org...
signature:



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   
The democrats are doing there jobs dam well, looking out for American workers rights. Going away was their last option!!! Thay would of stayed and debated it but the republicans were just going to jam it down their thoats like they did in the assembly. Read and educate yourselves. This was a political coup in which they voted so fast that 28 assembly men did not reach their buzzers! That is NOT democracy! No wonder the democrats don't want to come back, the very same thing will happen and they know it
edit on 4-3-2011 by Skerrako because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 
E

They can punish them all they want.

My issue is them using the state police as their own personal guard to push through the legislation they want.


I seem to remember a lot of people upset about the health care bill because despite all the protests...the government passed the bill anyway.

The capital of Wisconsin is FULL of protestors...for weeks now...and yet people who were hell bent against the health care bill being passed because it "went against the will of the people" are fine with ramming this through.

Absolutely wonderfuly hypocritical.
Agreed,Mindspin,This is a perfect example of the sports-team mindset that both parties use to keep the people under control.Neither side cares has long as they think their team is "wining."



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by bphi1908
 


Their job is to represent their districts. Their districts oppose this bill. The people pushing this bill are not allowing discussion - they're barely allowing voting. Those pushing the bill have enough of a majority that even if all the Democrats voted no or abstained, the bill would pass. Thus, if the Democrats were to come back and either vote no or just stand around picking their noses, their constituencies' desires would not be represented in any fashion.

That is, if the Democrats voted, they would not be doing their job.

It seems counter-intuitive until you realize that their responsibility is to the people who hired them; their districts. if being out of state to prevent a vote is what it takes to protect the interests of their constituents, then hthat's what they're going to do, because that is their job.


Speaking of representing consituents:

Tea Party at Washington
www.wnd.com...

Union protest at Wisconsin: biggest pic I could find actually
www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   
Ido not see why they need these pep's to vote in the first place? what ever happened to abscent checkmark? they dont need these folk's for a passing bill anyway so let them go to helabalo for all that i care. this is not even an issue, seem's like a reason to take your eyes of the real news?



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


the US Military has a provision to prosecute members who go AWOL, (absent-without-leave)
the State Legislature Democrats had also taken an Oath to perform the duties of their office,

If they chose to run away & hide out to avoid their duty (deliberating & voting) they need to be
extradited to their State Capitol, and/ or deemed so mentally unbalanced so as to not be able
to do the duties of the office they hold --- i.e. Impeached and removed from their position.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by MindSpin
 


the US Military has a provision to prosecute members who go AWOL, (absent-without-leave)
the State Legislature Democrats had also taken an Oath to perform the duties of their office,

If they chose to run away & hide out to avoid their duty (deliberating & voting) they need to be
extradited to their State Capitol, and/ or deemed so mentally unbalanced so as to not be able
to do the duties of the office they hold --- i.e. Impeached and removed from their position.


People in the military are government property elected officials are not. They have broken no law so Walker will have to think of something else. Maybe he should call the people he was elected to serve you know the Koch brothers I'm they have a few idea's.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
If they chose to run away & hide out to avoid their duty (deliberating & voting) they need to be
extradited to their State Capitol, and/ or deemed so mentally unbalanced so as to not be able
to do the duties of the office they hold --- i.e. Impeached and removed from their position.

agreed, star 4 u


I think it's time for 14
new elections in WI



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
No.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Daughter2
 


Wisconsin Law - Logrolling Prohibited


13.05 Logrolling prohibited. Any member of the legislature who gives, offers or promises to give his or her vote or influence in favor of or against any measure or proposition pending or proposed to be introduced in the legislature in consideration or upon condition that any other person elected to the same legislature will give or will promise or agree to give his or her vote or influence in favor of or against any other measure or proposition pending or proposed to be introduced in such legislature, or who gives, offers or promises to give his or her vote or influence for or against any measure on condition that any other member will give his or her vote or influence in favor of any change in any other bill pending or proposed to be introduced in the legislature, is guilty of a Class I felony.


Since we have all 14 Democrats who are using their positions to influence the vote, as well as keeping each other in line, I would say they have violated this section.

Freedom of Debate

Arrest of Officers (legislators)

13.19 Arrest of officers. No officer of the senate or assembly, while in actual attendance upon the duties of that person's office, shall be liable to arrest on civil process.


- Since they are not in the Capital, they are not performing their duties, making them elligable to be arrested and forced to return to the Capital.

Contempt

(1) Each house may punish as a contempt, by imprisonment, a breach of its privileges or the privileges of its members; but only for one or more of the following offenses:


13.26(1)(a)
(a) Arresting a member or officer of the house, or procuring such member or officer to be arrested in violation of the member's privilege from arrest.


13.26(1)(b)
(b) Disorderly conduct in the immediate view of either house or of any committee thereof and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings.


13.26(1)(c)
(c) Refusing to attend or be examined as a witness, either before the house or a committee, or before any person authorized to take testimony in legislative proceedings, or to produce any books, records, documents, papers or keys according to the exigency of any subpoena.


13.26(1)(d)
(d) Giving or offering a bribe to a member, or attempting by menace or other corrupt means or device to control or influence a member's vote or to prevent the member from voting.


13.26(2)
(2) The term of imprisonment a house may impose under this section shall not extend beyond the same session of the legislature.


They have violated this section as well.
$x=Advanced#0-0-0-8243]Punishment for Contempt

$x=Advanced#0-0-0-8245]Interpellation of Officers - Violated

$x=Advanced#0-0-0-223]Wisconsin Law for Impeachment



All of the above aside, they are violating Section 28 - Oath of Office, which they took willingly and with no mental reservations to faithfully execute their oath of office.

Notice it does not cover running away and hiding.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 05:52 AM
link   
We'll see if all of you here that are against this protest feel the same way when the government tells you that all the PRIVATE pensions and 401k plans are gone with the derivitives debt black hole the central banks have created. We should all be protesting the Federal Reserve and the monetary policies that got us here to begin with. The system is pitting us against each other to shift the blame onto unions so we don't notice the dollar devaluation and the real crime syndicate that is driving this country into the ditch.



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
It's about time someone arrested those crooks!



posted on Mar, 4 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by peponastick
 


pepon, as we have learned, their private pension with their personal contributions was in addition to the pensions funded by the public accounts. So please do not mix apples and oranges. I find it intriguing that the Democrat camp not only expects taxpayers to fund their pensions, but want the govt to have access to our private pensions from working at private companies. Seems something is amiss here.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join