Wisconsin Senate passes resolution calling for Democrats to be taken into police custody, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 41 times

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 02:48 PM by rogerstigers

Originally posted by shockologist

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
Why run?
Why not vote no?

Because they don't have the #'s

Seriously? Do you people listen to yourselves? It doesn't take any guts to vote no to a bill you do not agree with, especially when you are the minority and your vote doesn't matter at all.

However, when you can go to get re-elected, saying you did everything in your power to fight against the bill may help with your voter base.

This is just a political strategy. I still don't think it will work, but it might help them get re-elected.

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 02:53 PM by butcherguy

reply to post by MindSpin

Like I told someone else...the healthcare reform was debated for well over a year before anything was ever passed. Much longer than most pieces of legislation.

Maybe if those 14 runaways were there at the state house, they could be part of a 'one sided' debate too.

It really is two sides of the same coin.

ETA: My point was, and I don't think you missed it, that the US Senate Republicans (the minority party) could have ran away to another country and held the Healthcare bill hostage.

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

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 02:55 PM by mzmusiq

reply to post by MindSpin

Bravo! My sentiments exactly!!! This whole thing is just Unconstitutional. Everybody needs to open their eyes. This type of stuff is definitely moving us towards a 'police state'!!!

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 02:59 PM by Whereweheaded

reply to post by rogerstigers

Do you concede that your source says the same thing as the US Constitution, in regards to the acts of membership, behavior, and adjournment?

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:02 PM by rogerstigers

reply to post by Whereweheaded

Of course. There's no argument there. It's semantics when it comes down to it. I content that the Democrats have not broken any laws. I DO conceed that they have violated rules of the Wisconson legislature and that the Repbulicans have every right to bring the Democrats back "in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide". I am not sure if they would have the right to use state police, though. I would think those were under the jurisdiction of the executive branch.

I do not conceed that the US Constitution can override state constitutions in terms of organization and structure of government. I do not see such language anywhere in there -- although I would be interested in seeing if perhaps it was agreed to in Wisconson's agreement for accession to the United States.

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

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:05 PM by Whereweheaded

reply to post by rogerstigers

I see what your saying, however:

state constitutions in terms of organization and structure of government.

Your above quote needs to be addressed. Each individual state derives their states Constitution from the US Constitution. The states use the US Constitution as a " Template" if you will. Less we forget, that the US BOR and Constitution are " suppose " to be the law of the land.

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:06 PM by KOLTON

Fox News;

Wisconsin Dem.s given 1 hour to return:

~54 minutes remaining.

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:07 PM by Whereweheaded

reply to post by KOLTON

And then what? Did any source say what the repercussion will be?

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:07 PM by rogerstigers

reply to post by Whereweheaded

LOL.. You forget, you are talking to a Texan. Our consitution is based on the Country of Texas' consitution, albeit, that was loosely based on the US Constitution. So yeah, I guess my experience and views on the matter are a tad skewed.

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

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:12 PM by Stormdancer777

been on my mind

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:12 PM by Whereweheaded

reply to post by rogerstigers

Well I see, but Texas's Constitution was also derived from the US Constitution.

Article 3

Section 11 Says the same thing as the US and Wisconsin's Constitution.

Sec.A11.AARULES OF PROCEDURE; EXPULSION OF MEMBER.

Each House may determine the rules of its own proceedings, punish members for disorderly conduct, and, with the consent of two-thirds, expel a member, but not a second time for the same offense.

just so you know.

www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us...

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

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:12 PM by KOLTON

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by KOLTON

And then what? Did any source say what the repercussion will be?

They will be detained and forced to the Senate Meeting.

We have the right to speak, but do we have the right to not speak?

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:14 PM by SmedleyBurlap

reply to post by butcherguy

No, they couldn't have, how would the nationalist voter base have responded to that? "REPUBLICANS ABANDON AMERICA FOR THE SAFETY OF MEXICO" does not sound good to conservative ears.

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:16 PM by butcherguy

reply to post by SmedleyBurlap

More like Republicans go south of the border to save American people from Obamacare.

It is all in how you write it.

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:17 PM by Stormdancer777

Dems Fled Wisconsin to Buy Time to Pass New Union Contracts

nation.foxnews.com...

the plot thickens

Government e-mails reveal plot to stall budget repair bill

Before protesters stormed the capitol, the mayor of the city of Madison tried to pull a fast one. The governor's budget repair bill was on the fast track, and Madison Mayor Dave Ciesliewicz was racing against the clock to pass new union contracts first.

E-mails obtained by the FOX6 Investigators show that the mayor enlisted the help of State Senator Mark Miller. They both tried to convince the Secretary of State to hold up the bill by taking the maximum 10 days allowed by law before publishing the bill.

They were trying to buy some time so they could ratify new contracts to protect workers from benefit cuts. Citizens for Responsible Government Rep. Chris Kliesmet says, "This suggests, and this is a harsh word, collusion. There is collusion between some politicians and public sector employee unions. Period."

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:17 PM by rogerstigers

reply to post by Whereweheaded

Ah.. so it does.

I still disagree that the articles relating to the organization and structure of a state's government is subordinate to that of the US Government. From my understanding, States have the right to organize their government in whatever manner that they like as long as they contribute the required members of the senate and house to the US Government. I am perfectly willing to accept that I am wrong on this point, but I have yet to see anything to the contrary.

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:19 PM by butcherguy

reply to post by Stormdancer777

There is collusion between some politicians and public sector employee unions.

Say it ain't so!!!

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:19 PM by rogerstigers

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

"This suggests, and this is a harsh word, collusion. There is collusion between some politicians and public sector employee unions. Period."

*smirk* as if that is anything new or differant.

reply posted on 3-3-2011 @ 03:21 PM by MindSpin