TX: Lawmaker proposes changing rule on quorums , page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 10:47 AM by rogerstigers
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Just getting to this.. the earthquake and tsunami have consumed the better part of the morning. Will look into the bill a bit.



reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 11:44 AM by centurion1211
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


No one has any thoughts?


I posted this on another thread.

What I think might happen in the future is that some sort of "threat" will be announced to the people they don't want to leave and they will be put in "protective custody" until the threat is resolved and the votes are over.


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 11:47 AM by rogerstigers
Hmm.. after reading the text of the proposed ammendment.. I tend to agree that it is a sticky wicket.. However, this does not allow for the minority party to try to game the system either.


A JOINT RESOLUTION
proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the determination
of a quorum of the senate or house of representatives.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 10, Article III, Texas Constitution, is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10. Two-thirds of the members of each House of the
Legislature, excluding members whom the presiding officer
determines are absent from the state, shall constitute a quorum to
do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and
compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under
such penalties as each House may provide.
SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be
submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2011.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition: "The constitutional amendment to exclude a senator or
representative who is absent from this state from the determination
of a quorum needed for a house of the legislature to do business."



As you can see, in the underlined sections, the presiding officer makes the determination. That will always be the majority party. Thus this is a tool that can only be used by the majority. Given how rarely the quorum tactic is used, I see this as a power play and a bit overkill.


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 12:13 PM by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by rogerstigers


Straight party is for the ignorant, IMO


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 01:35 PM by centurion1211
Originally posted by rogerstigers
Originally posted by centurion1211
Question for you:

How did "the party in power" get to be in power?

Wasn't it through a vote of the people?

You seem to think that the losing party should deserve equal voting rights that do not exist.

Not how democracy works, but do you care about that?


Actually, for a functional democracy, you have to have concessions for the minority parties. The allow for alternative views to surface and force a certain level of balance in the legislative process. If minority parties are nuetered, then whoever holds a majority can easily steam roll anything they want through. This may not be an issue in a healthy repulic, but in a situation where the majority party is considered to be corrupt or at the very least not acting in the interests of their constituants, then you end up with an out of control government.

And in Texas, the Republicans gained such control because of a combination of "party line" voting (discussed earlier) and brazen gerrymandering.



No. In a nicer world, one could hope it would work that way, but in reality there is nothing in the law that says it HAS to work that way. You don't have to offer concessions to the minority. The obamacare debate was a perfect example of how it works when the shoe is on the other foot.

And as for this statement you made:

but in a situation where the majority party is considered to be corrupt or at the very least not acting in the interests of their constituants, then you end up with an out of control government.


Couldn't agree more - as currently demonstrated at the federal level from 2008 through 2010.

edit on 3/11/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 03:05 PM by maybereal11
Originally posted by rogerstigers
Hmm.. after reading the text of the proposed ammendment.. I tend to agree that it is a sticky wicket.. However, this does not allow for the minority party to try to game the system either.


A JOINT RESOLUTION
proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the determination
of a quorum of the senate or house of representatives.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 10, Article III, Texas Constitution, is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10. Two-thirds of the members of each House of the
Legislature, excluding members whom the presiding officer
determines are absent from the state, shall constitute a quorum to
do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and
compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under
such penalties as each House may provide.
SECTION 2. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be
submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2011.
The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the
proposition: "The constitutional amendment to exclude a senator or
representative who is absent from this state from the determination
of a quorum needed for a house of the legislature to do business."



As you can see, in the underlined sections, the presiding officer makes the determination. That will always be the majority party. Thus this is a tool that can only be used by the majority. Given how rarely the quorum tactic is used, I see this as a power play and a bit overkill.


Dangerous...It might benefit the GOP now, but could hurt them in the future if they ever become the minority.

Besides that...there is a reason a Quorum is required....Many state assemblies don't allow for the Fillibuster which takes a 3/5th quotrum of the members to break...so the alternative is to be absent.

Same as the filibuster, same quorum requirements...

I can envision factions of the assembly or the GOP or Dems in general passing laws when let's say the GOP convention is held in a different state? Simply gather and declare the members out of state irrelevant and pass a law?

It seems dangerous and irresponsible to democracy, but hey...it is TX.
edit on 11-3-2011 by maybereal11 because: (no reason given)


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 10:25 PM by Stunspot
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh




Ah, Texas. That state MOST begging to be 'messed with' -- as crazy as Florida, as stupid as Alabama, and with the same unwarranted and overinflated sense of self worth as Georgia.

This is a blatant political move with no consideration given for actual governance. If Wisconsin had never happened, neither would this. But hell, it's not like we expect any better from the south -- morons easily duped into demanding less federal spending... until they realize they get more from the Fed than they pay in. When they realize THAT, it's all naked greed with no bootstraps to be seen.

I think the Austin Lounge Lizards put it best:

By God, we're so darned proud
to be from Texas! (Yahoo!)
Even of our pride we're proud,
And we're proud of THAT pride TOO!
Our pride about our homestate
Is our proudest pride, inDEED!
And we're proud to Amuricuns
Until we can secede!

No, after the horseplop they pulled with our textbooks last year, my opinion is that Texas SHOULD secede, then try to fend for themselves. I give them 2 years before they're a bankrupt Latino state begging for charity.

They can go [BLANK] themselves.


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 10:25 PM by Stunspot
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh




Ah, Texas. That state MOST begging to be 'messed with' -- as crazy as Florida, as stupid as Alabama, and with the same unwarranted and overinflated sense of self worth as Georgia.

This is a blatant political move with no consideration given for actual governance. If Wisconsin had never happened, neither would this. But hell, it's not like we expect any better from the south -- morons easily duped into demanding less federal spending... until they realize they get more from the Fed than they pay in. When they realize THAT, it's all naked greed with no bootstraps to be seen.

I think the Austin Lounge Lizards put it best:

By God, we're so darned proud
to be from Texas! (Yahoo!)
Even of our pride we're proud,
And we're proud of THAT pride TOO!
Our pride about our homestate
Is our proudest pride, inDEED!
And we're proud to Amuricuns
Until we can secede!

No, after the horseplop they pulled with our textbooks last year, my opinion is that Texas SHOULD secede, then try to fend for themselves. I give them 2 years before they're a bankrupt Latino state begging for charity.

They can go [BLANK] themselves.


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 10:29 PM by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


It's a bill that enshrines the rule of partisan absolute majority. Under this bill, the minority party might as well just stay home and watch the game anyway, since their constituents and their desires will be overridden by whatever the majority party wishes.


reply posted on 11-3-2011 @ 10:39 PM by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Stunspot


in the words of the now famous meme . . .

lolumadbro?
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 19 days ago with 81 member flags
People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags
Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags
President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags
Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 13 days ago with 23 member flags
US judge blocks indefinite detention of Americans
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags