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: 24
41
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by desert
my 2c...

There are disgruntled voters who are upset that Obama has not gone far enough, contrary to Fox belief that voters are disgruntled because Obama went too far.


Would you people please stop saying this? He deliberately lied. This wasn't a mistake or a compromise. It was a deliberate deception.

Yeah. The idiots who still support Obama in spite of the fact that he lied to them about this think he didn't go far enough. The individual mandate wasn't supposed to be there. Period. They simply refuse to acknowledge it. It was up to Obama to figure out how to do what he promised to do without the mandate. It wasn't anyone else's fault.
edit on 6-3-2011 by spicypickle because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by spicypickle

Originally posted by Annee


I am very much aware America is a Democratic Republic (or was - or was intended to be). I'd say today it is Corporate Fascist.


The age old cry of the wounded Democrat. You know what's fascist? Forcing people to buy things. You could make a good case for the Republican party having some fascist tendencies but even they never went that far.


I happen to be a 40 year registered Republican. The Right Wing extremists who call themselves Republicans - - - give real Republicans a bad name.

However - I think there is more going on today then a two party system.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
The Right Wing extremists who call themselves Republicans - - - give real Republicans a bad name.


Why would that be?



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by spicypickle
 


To clear things up, right wing extremists= Big government Republicans. They give true conservative republicans a bad name



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 




Originally posted by bphi1908
Does my assertion still seem like a "stretch"? And if it is then you tell me why the Democrats lost so many seats on the State and Federal level? Or more specifically why was there such a large turnover in Wisconsin?




Originally posted by kinda kuriousEasy
There is a significant amount of misinformation being spewed by the Right wing smear machine (FOX NEWS) directed at a large population of gullible, uninformed voters who think our POTUS is a Muslim etc. There you are in a single sentence.



Wow! Excellent analysis of the current political climate in this country, you have shown why it is so difficult for people with opposing viewpoints to have any sort of meaningful dialogue. You feel, along with a few other posters in this thread, superior to everyone else. How could you not with such thought provoking responses!

Nowhere in any of my posts have I ever said I thought President Obama was a Muslim because I don't care.
Nowhere in any of my posts have I ever said I thought President Obama was not a US citizen because I don't care.
Nowhere in any of my posts have I ever said I thought President Obama was unfit to be president because of the color of his skin because guess what I don't care.

You want to believe I am a Fox news devotee, did you assume that because I don't agree with his policies? It is possible to disagree with his policies without being a racist, bigot or a Fox news watcher.

And again there is a group of people in this thread who think ANYONE who doesn't have the same opinion as them are stupid and unable to make up their own mind without the help of TV personalities.

That makes you a self righteous, pretentious fool, the court jester avatar of yours is very fitting.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bphi1908
 


Just to recap. You asked me what I thought contributed to the recent political "changing of the guard." I obliged. I didn't direct any assumptions toward you personally. Nice attempt to misdirect and turn it personal.


Originally posted by kinda kurious

Originally posted by bphi1908
Does my assertion still seem like a "stretch"? And if it is then you tell me why the Democrats lost so many seats on the State and Federal level? Or more specifically why was there such a large turnover in Wisconsin?


Easy, there is a significant amount of misinformation being spewed by the Right wing smear machine (FOX NEWS) directed at a large population of gullible, uninformed voters who think our POTUS is a Muslim etc. There you are in a single sentence.


BTW, most members here realize when you attack someone's screen name or Avatar it tends to be a weak sauce argument of last resort. Especially by someone who isn't sporting one.



Originally posted by bphi1908
That makes you a self righteous, pretentious fool, the court jester avatar of yours is very fitting.


edit on 6-3-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 





Just to recap. You asked me what I thought contributed to the recent political "changing of the guard." I obliged. I didn't direct any assumptions toward you personally. Nice attempt to misdirect and turn it personal.


It becomes personal when you say roughly half of this country is stupid and/or bigots. You shroud your message very cleverly with eloquent writing but your message is very clear.



BTW, most members here realize when you attack someone's screen name or Avatar it tends to be a weak sauce argument of last resort. Especially by someone who isn't sporting one.


Not attacking your avatar at all merely said it was fitting of the user. I'll will get cracking on creating my avatar for you.



gullible, uninformed voters who think our POTUS is a Muslim


Stereotyping millions of people and calling that an answer isn't "a weak sauce argument of last resort"



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Its only unpopular if you don't agree with it. You are seeing what you want to see.


www.msnbc.msn.com...

I said it's unpopular because it's unpopular. This ia MSNBC/WSJ poll as of March 16, 2010



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako
reply to post by spicypickle
 


To clear things up, right wing extremists= Big government Republicans. They give true conservative republicans a bad name


I really must have missed a lot while I was away. I was a registered Republican for nearly 40 years before I left the party in disgust (or more properly, IT left ME) in 2006. That was due to the neocon (whom I afffectionately refer to as the "neocommies" amongst friends) takeover of the Republican party.

While the neocommies ARE extremist, they are anything BUT "right wing". The phrase "big government" in your own reply should have clued you in to that. "Big government" is anything BUT conservative, and has been a hallmark of what used to be the "left" ever since I can recall.

Now, way back when, the Republicans actually were "rightward", and the Democrats "leftward". In those long ago days, the color representing the "left" was red, and the color representing the "right" was blue. The entire Soviet flag, representing the extreme left in those days, was a field of entirely red, with a little hammer and sickle in the corner of it. American Democrats were not nearly that far to the left in those days, but they WERE to the leftward, and so were still represented by red (on election maps and such) and the Republicans, being to the right, were represented by blue in the same venues.

That all got turned upside down in the 2000 elections. Suddenly, red was the new blue, and vice versa.

It took me a while to get used to that sort of upside down color scheme, and now I find out that "big government Republicans" are now RIGHT wing extremists, rather than LEFT wing as they would have formerly been considered in the days before the hostile neocommie takeover. If they are to the RIGHT, then everything else must, by definition, be to the left. In that case, there ARE no more conservatives, and I am the last of a dying breed.

I've realized for a while now that there is no longer a party which supports conservatives (why I quit the Republicans to begin with), but this revelation will take as much getting used to as the red-blue switch out did.

If the neocommies, with their big government Statist repressive mentality are now at the right, then I am so far to the right that I wrap around to the left.

I don't think I'll EVER be able to get used to that.



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
America Is Not Broke

I don't always agree with Michael Moore, but he says it pretty well here. Utimately this isn't a Dems vs Repubs thing, or a budget thing. It's all about control. The teachers gave on concessions to the cut in pay and having to pay more for benefits. So that just leaves the union busting part of the legislation. The legislation is too far reaching. People don't like this when the Dems do it on other items that people consider a more personal option (mandated Healthcare) and they shouldn't like this either (mandated union busting). Govt. should have it's limits.

Anyway, watch this with an open mind, not colored in red or blue.




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
I was a registered Republican for nearly 40 years before I left the party in disgust (or more properly, IT left ME) in 2006. That was due to the neocon (whom I afffectionately refer to as the "neocommies" amongst friends) takeover of the Republican party.

While the neocommies ARE extremist, they are anything BUT "right wing". The phrase "big government" in your own reply should have clued you in to that. "Big government" is anything BUT conservative, and has been a hallmark of what used to be the "left" ever since I can recall.


Yeah that! That explains it much better.

And I too have left the party in my mind - - just haven't completed the paperwork yet.

I'm going to register non-affiliated.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu


I really must have missed a lot while I was away. I was a registered Republican for nearly 40 years before I left the party in disgust (or more properly, IT left ME) in 2006. That was due to the neocon (whom I afffectionately refer to as the "neocommies" amongst friends) takeover of the Republican party.

While the neocommies ARE extremist, they are anything BUT "right wing". The phrase "big government" in your own reply should have clued you in to that. "Big government" is anything BUT conservative, and has been a hallmark of what used to be the "left" ever since I can recall.


Good post!

I haven't always been conservative but I do know a real conservative when I see one and these neocons (Or neocommies as you call them) are more like lefties. Which probably explains why Obama has largely continued the policies of Bush on the downlow.

And you're right. There really doesn't seem to be a party that represents real conservatives now. However, you still have a card to play because the people who are masquerading as conservatives still have to answer to conservative voters. So, if they can't sweet talk the real conservatives into accepting big government policies, they're screwed and they know it.

The left wins either way. They either get big government in the form of a Bush or big government in the form of Obama or a Clinton. They clearly don't mind letting a Bush expand the areas of government he's able to. And that's probably why we barely heard a peep out of the left for eight years of Bush. Notice they didn't roll any of that stuff back when they got the majority.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by maybereal11


I don't think you meant to respond to me? Confused?



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlesUTP
reply to post by MindSpin
 


from your star tribune source

"Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says the action is legally different from an arrest, but "definitely a shift from asking them politely."

The resolution says the absent Democrats are determined to be guilty of contempt and disorderly content. It gives the sergeant at arms the authority to take any and all steps, with or without force and assistance from police, to bring the senators back."

so they are guilty of something.


The Democratic lawmakers are practicing a form of civil disobedience by leaving the state.

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance


They are aware of the consequences of their actions just as much as a protester that engages in a overnight Statehouse sit-in is aware that their actions will likely lead to detainment or arrest.

Both sides are engaging in pretty standard political maneuvers, though it seems like both sides have decided to use their "nuclear options."



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bphi1908

Can't I believe what the democrats are doing is wrong, in this case, as well as not agree with gov. Walker's
heavy handed tactics?



Originally posted by bphi1908
What everyone including our elected officials needs to do is compromise and work together, it is what civilized people do and it is what we expect out of our elected officials, unless the goal is not simply to balance the budgets but to divide the people in this nation even more than they already are.


Forgive me for editing down your post to a few key points.

First...yes you can disagree or agree with both sides in this scenario simultaneously. It's not only possible, but the best possible starting point.

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time. . .
- F. Scott Fitzgerald

For my part, I am not an unwavering union supporter. Teacher unions in particular need reform.

BUT, this bill has absolutely nothing to do with the issues that need to be addressed with teacher unions, but is rather designed to gut them and defund them for political purposes.

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it, misdiagnosing it and then misapplying the wrong remedies.
- Groucho Marx


Originally posted by bphi1908
What everyone including our elected officials needs to do is compromise and work together, it is what civilized people do


Agreed....and someone should tell Gov. Walker.

The teachers agreed to his demands a month ago...and his refusal to accept those demands simply highlights his political agenda and the painful fact that balancing the budget is not his motivation.



Feb. 19, 2011
Madison - State Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) issued a statement on Saturday saying that he had been told that all state and local public employees, including teachers, have agreed to the financial aspects of Gov. Scott Walker's budget-repair bill.

"This includes Walker's requested concession on public employee health care and pension,"
Erpenbach's statement said. "In return, they ask only that the provisions that deny their right to collectively bargain are removed. This will solve the budget challenge."


As for those that are eroneously claiming that the Democrats are breaking the law...

A simple question...if they are breaking the law, why is the GOP dominated assembly having to pass a resolution to encourage thier arrest?

And why, even with the resolution...is it still not considered an actual "arrest"? Just ask the GOP Majority Leader.




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

MADISON, Wis. – The Wisconsin Senate has passed a resolution calling for police to take 14 Democrats into custody for contempt after they fled to Illinois to avoid voting on a union rights bill.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald says the action is legally different from an arrest, but “definitely a shift from asking them politely.


dailycaller.com...

Sending state troopers to lawmakers homes...?
Passing resolutions to send State Troopers out looking for them?

There are only so many ways that you can walk that line between democracy and dictatorship.

The Police are not there to enforce a political agenda....read that again. Not a left or right thing, but a thing that distinguishes us from a police state or dictatorship.

Sending police after citizens without clear legal justification...whatever side of the debate you sit on...you should be shouting, this is not OK in the USA....because if it becomes acceptable, then maybe somewhere down the road, state troopers might knock on your door to "encourage" you to attend/or not attend, a political gathering.




edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I am not in agreement with Governor Walker on the union issue. That being said, there is precedence for the arrest and detainment of lawmakers. The US Congress even has a similar rule:

The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate is the law enforcer for the United States Senate. One of the chief roles of the Sergeant is to hold the gavel used at every session. The Sergeant can also compel the attendance of absent Senators.


Compel means arrest....
edit on 3/7/2011 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka

The Democratic lawmakers are practicing a form of civil disobedience by leaving the state.

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always, defined as being nonviolent resistance




Uhhh...Not sure where you got your definition as there is no source.

Here is the legal defintion..
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

You will note it doesn't include "Demands and commands of a government"

Breaking the law is one thing, but in the USA, citizens are not subject to legal consequences when they refuse to obey the arbitrary "Demands" of the party in power. "Demands and Commands" are not "Laws"...for the love of God that is the very definition of a dictatorship.

This is just insanity...

It is just freakish to me that the same talking heads who screamed that Michelle Obama was a facist dictator for simply encouraging kids to eat healthy...have no problem with a local Gov. using State police as his personal enforcers.

It is offensive to our principles as a nation...again, not a right/left thing...it is simply NOT ok in a democracy or the "free republic" of the United States of America.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
I am not in agreement with Governor Walker on the union issue. That being said, there is precedence for the arrest and detainment of lawmakers. The US Congress even has a similar rule:

The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate is the law enforcer for the United States Senate. One of the chief roles of the Sergeant is to hold the gavel used at every session. The Sergeant can also compel the attendance of absent Senators.


Compel means arrest....
edit on 3/7/2011 by clay2 baraka because: (no reason given)


NOPE ...NOT the same thing

Actually if the Wisc. Democrats were arrested that action would allow for the arrest of Gov. Walker and any legislators that directed the arrest.

Forgive the lengthy quote, but in the context of all the back and forth and confusion I thought it neccessary to provide an actual legal explanation from a Wisconsin Law firm that was kind enough to clarify.

It is pretty clear cut - not an opinion. The laws have been establsished as to what can and can not done.




TO: Interested Parties

FROM: Attorneys Lester A. Pines & Susan M. Crawford

DATE: March 3, 2011

Wisconsin State Senate Lacks Authority to Hold Members in Contempt and Order Their Arrest

The Wisconsin Constitution absolutely prohibits members of the Wisconsin Senate from being arrested for a non-criminal offense. The failure or refusal of a senator to attend a session of the senate is not a crime. Nor is it in contempt of the Senate. Moreover, the Senate’s authority to cite any individual for contempt is limited to those offenses listed in Wis. Stat. §13.26(1), none of which have been committed by any of the absent senators. The Wisconsin Senate’s action today in citing fourteen of its members for contempt for their refusal to attend the Senate’s sessions and to issue warrants for their arrest has no basis in the law of this state.

Each house of the Wisconsin Legislature may “compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide.” Wis. Const. Art. IV, §7. However, the Wisconsin Constitution confers on each legislator a broad privilege from arrest:

Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session.

Wis. Const. Art. IV, §15.

Thus, while the Wisconsin Constitution authorizes each house to penalize its members in order to compel their attendance, this power must give way to the constitutional protection bestowed on each member privileging them from arrest or civil process.

This privilege protects members of the legislature from arrest or civil process, except in criminal cases. State v. Burke, 258 Wis.2d 832, 653 N.W.2d 922 (Ct. App. 2002).

None of the fourteen absent senators has been charged with a crime. Nor has any crime occurred. The Wisconsin Senate has absolutely no authority to order any of its members arrested or taken into custody in order to compel their attendance.

Likewise, the Senate’s authority to find a person in contempt is limited by statute. Section 13.26 of the Wisconsin Statutes provides that:

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:

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

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

Wis. Stat. §13.26 (1) (emphasis added).

None of those offenses has been committed by any of the absent senators. In fact, were one of the absent senators to be arrested on a warrant issued by Senator Fitzgerald, that action would violate Wis. Stat. §13.26(a) and subject him to being held in contempt of the Senate.

Notably, §13.26 authorizes the order of contempt and imprisonment only of third parties. It does not authorized such an order against members of the legislature It is consistent with, and implicitly acknowledges, the privilege from arrest bestowed on members of the legislature by the Wisconsin Constitution.

The Senate Rules proscribe the lawful procedure by which members may be compelled to be present. Senate Rule 8 authorizes the Sergeant at Arms to “proceed to find and bring in such absentees” upon the Senate’s call to the house. Neither the Senate Rules, the Wisconsin Constitution, nor the Wisconsin Statutes authorize the sergeant at arms to direct law enforcement to arrest a member, under threat or show of force, to compel the attendance of the member.

While the Senate may lawfully impose penalties on its absent members, and may direct the Sergeant at Arms to proceed to find and bring in such members, the Senate has no authority to issue a warrant for the arrest of its members.


www.forwardlookout.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spicypickle
I haven't always been conservative but I do know a real conservative when I see one and these neocons (Or neocommies as you call them) are more like lefties. Which probably explains why Obama has largely continued the policies of Bush on the downlow.


Can you list Obama's accomplishments? I see no legitimacy in bashing anyone from a one sided view.

I find no realism in your expectations.

And I am NOT conservative - - unless you are speaking of Financial Responsibility. I do support "hand ups" - - not "hand outs". "That which is not earned has no value". However - - sometimes people need a "hand up" and short term assistance. Throwing money at people (culture) that make no effort to improve themselves is a loser proposition.

Back to Wisconsin. It is a power grab to remove all power from the people. Calling Walker "King Walker" - - is right on point.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Even I, as a layman rather than a lawyer, can see what appear to be egregious flaws in that legal analysis, most notably perhaps in sections (b) and (c) of the "violations" list. I believe that therefore the compulsion should proceed. Only after it has been accomplished can these wayward individuals defend their actions and contest the compulsion that put an end to them, and finally get a legal determination of the issues at hand.

Judging by the conflicting opinions presented here, as well as by those presented in various other analyses of the legal ramifications, this is a point that needs to be tested and legally clarified.

While an analysis by an private law firm is interesting, and may carry some weight in the arguments, it is NOT a legally binding decision. Those are issued by judges, not independent law firms.

During the course of any such clarification, we can then find out whether the Wisconsin State Constitution or the opinion of this law firm is the more validly applicable to the issues at hand.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join