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

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Do you see this:

become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be

If I'm not mistaken, this would suggest where the states derive their powers from, albeit, the US constitution Article 1 Section 8.

Yeah I read that a few times to see if I was reading it correctly. My reading suggests that it is giving Congress controll over that 10 square mile plot of land where the Seat of USGov is and authority over all places purchased by the legislature of the State that is hosting the seat of government of the USGov.. with the creation of DC this section became moot.

Upon further investigation, I now see WHY this section was enacted:

The United States capital was originally located in Philadelphia, beginning with the First and Second Continental Congress, followed by the Congress of the Confederation upon gaining independence. In June 1783, a mob of angry soldiers converged upon Independence Hall to demand payment for their service during the American Revolutionary War. Congress requested that John Dickinson, the governor of Pennsylvania, call up the militia to defend Congress from attacks by the protesters. In what became known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, Dickinson sympathized with the protesters and refused to remove them from Philadelphia. As a result, Congress was forced to flee to Princeton, New Jersey on June 21, 1783.[12]

Dickinson's failure to protect the institutions of the national government was discussed at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787[citation needed]. The delegates therefore agreed in Article One, Section 8, of the United States Constitution to give the Congress the power:


To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square [259 km²]) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings

History of D.C.

reply to post by The Sword


Um...there has been for the last say?.....oh.....40 years! Have any understanding of the monetary system, and the reasonings behind the gold standard removal?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by MindSpin

 

They are doing their job...they are letting the people they represent protest and have their voices heard before this law is rammed through.

I didn't know that was how our representatives did business,

I think I am a little concerned by the paid demonstrators, though, you know those people that get bused in, I would be more sympathetic if it was the actually teaches who are effected by the situation they are facing, I think the majority of them are back at work.

Do you have any proof that there are PAID demonstrators that have been "bussed in" from out of state???

I know people were bused to Madison...that is because Madison is out in the middle of nowhere and it makes more sense to provide a bus then telling everyone to drive themselves...let's say from the largest state in Wisconsin...Milwaukee???

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Since when were union dues considered as taxpayer money?

How many times must it be posted here before you get it? The purpose of this place is to DENY ignorance, not PROMOTE it!

In other words, if it comes from Fox, it's crap.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Well here you go:
Article 1 Section 8

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

10th Amendment of the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

are you using the PATRIOT ACT OR WHAT? (true colors coming out again CONservatives? )


Show us the Warrant and then show us the law that is being violated -

Has the state filed suit??? please direct us to the filing

Show us what instrument is compelling the use of the long arm statutes to seize these Senators if they are in fact out of jurisdiction?

getting frustrated,,, time to go Nazi???

- suck eggs Walker



* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Why would I want to understand more of that right-wing quackery? I've heard enough to last a lifetime.

And yes, Walker should be impeached. It's too bad that it doesn't bother people that the Koch Brothers essentially own him while the same people whine and bitch and moan about unions "costing them money".

reply to post by The Sword


I think you need to " get it ?

Because government workers get their money not from a free marketplace but from taxes, their unions have a large incentive to advocate on behalf of political leaders who support higher taxes and bigger government, which can, in turn, produce an ever-greater number of public-sector union jobs.

What part of the above Fact don't you understand? Reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit apparently?

reply to post by Whereweheaded

I have a problem with people making to much money, especially when those funds obtained by the Unions in Fact pay over 90% of the Democratic parties lobbying agenda.

I think you have your "facts" wrong...or you provided a source that backs up something else.

Your source:

Union political support for Democrats is a trend that has been in place for decades, and it shows no signs of abating. In 2010, America's top 20 labor unions gave more than $68 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates -- with 94 percent of the total going to Democrats and just 4 percent to Republicans. Most of the total -- 88 percent -- came from political action committees (PACs) associated with those 20 unions, and the remaining 12 percent came from individual union members. A similar trend can be seen in state and local political campaigns. Fifteen unions gave at least $1 million to Democrats during the 2008 and 2010 campaigns. Combined, their donations totaled more than $206 million, of which fully 91 percent went to Democrats.

No where does it say that the Democrats get over 90% of their contributions from Unions as you claimed.

It says that of what the Unions contribute...over 90% goes to Unions.


Nice try in trying to distort that fact...weak tactic.


And as someone else pointed out...Union dues come from peoples salary. Doesn't matter how they go that or who paid that to them...it comes from their personal salary.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Show us proof of paid demonstrators instead of parroting crap that was fed to you by a MSM outlet.

Show us PROOF.

I do have some articles other then MSM, but I don't know what would meet your specification, usually, no one wins these arguments, no matter what evidence I may present.

So I usually don't beat dead horses

reply to post by butcherguy

Wow, reading this, one would suspect that you are the one complaining.

Some people like to control what government employees (and others that dip their snout in the govt trough) are paid, compared to someone that has to actually compete for their job and how much they are paid.

Oh right....add "government employees" to that cry-baby list.

And what exactly am I complaining about? I'm fine with other people making any amount of money they can...bankers, CEOs, and even government employees *gasp*

reply to post by Janky Red


Article VI :

Rules; contempts; expulsion. SECTION 8. Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings, punish for contempt and disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two− thirds of all the members elected, expel a member; but no member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause.

legis.wisconsin.gov...


As I have said before, they are in direct violation of the very Constitution that the State they represent put in place.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Show us proof of paid demonstrators instead of parroting crap that was fed to you by a MSM outlet.

Show us PROOF.

I do have some articles other then MSM, but I don't know what would meet your specification, usually, no one wins these arguments, no matter what evidence I may present.

So I usually don't beat dead horses

Are you engaging in magical thinking because it is contrary to your T.V station???

reply to post by MindSpin


BWAHAHAHA!!!!!

Union political support for Democrats is a trend that has been in place for decades, and it shows no signs of abating. In 2010, America's top 20 labor unions gave more than $68 million in campaign contributions to federal candidates -- with 94 percent of the total going to Democrats and just 4 percent to Republicans. Most of the total -- 88 percent -- came from political action committees (PACs) associated with those 20 unions, and the remaining 12 percent came from individual union members. A similar trend can be seen in state and local political campaigns. Fifteen unions gave at least $1 million to Democrats during the 2008 and 2010 campaigns. Combined, their donations totaled more than $206 million, of which fully 91 percent went to Democrats.

Heres a hint: Last sentence!

Before jumping the gun, and spewing out on the keyboard, stop....breathe, and re-read the information you wish to decry! laughable at best!

reply to post by Whereweheaded


You say this and quote a section saying that the legislature of WI *can* impose rules.. but you have not shown any rules that they have broken.

reply to post by rogerstigers

punish for contempt and disorderly behavior

I would think, that tucking tail and running would amount to childish " behavior" would it not? Or at the very least, not actions becoming of a State rep.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Actually, you just supported what MindSpin was saying... > 90% of the Union contributions went to democrats. I think it came across earlier that you were saying that democrats get >90% of their funding from unions.. totally differant..

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

punish for contempt and disorderly behavior

I would think, that tucking tail and running would amount to childish " behavior" would it not? Or at the very least, not actions becoming of a State rep.

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

Only if there is a rule against it. As i said before.. I don't see much differance between this tactic and a fillibuster. Childish and waste of time on both accounts, but totally legit unless there is a rule to the contrary.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Article VI :

Rules; contempts; expulsion. SECTION 8. Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings, punish for contempt and disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two− thirds of all the members elected, expel a member; but no member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause.

legis.wisconsin.gov...


As I have said before, they are in direct violation of the very Constitution that the State they represent put in place.

NO, the US constitution is supreme law of the land

If the state wants to compel them they must first file suit - they can attempt to file them, dock them or recall them, but they cannot seize them or arrest them because it makes you feel better. Again, see the forth
and the ninth - have a nice day

reply to post by MindSpin


No friend, it is not an email.

I will get back with ya.