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.
AUSTIN, Texas — A Texas lawmaker is proposing a change to the Texas Constitution that would stop legislators from breaking a quorum by leaving the state.
The proposed amendment is designed to keep lawmakers from the minority party from stalling legislation, such as Democrats are currently doing in Wisconsin. Texas Democrats used the same tactic in 2003.
. . . Read More . . .
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
No one has any thoughts?
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."
Originally posted by Janky Red
Whatever gives more power to the party in power is not my idea of good government.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Originally posted by Janky Red
Whatever gives more power to the party in power is not my idea of good government.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.