Republicans Threaten Senate Blockade if Reid Doesn't Deal With Debt, Spending

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Republicans stay and fight, not run away and hide:

Ten Republican senators are warning Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that they will block any bills that do not address fiscal issues until the current impasse on spending is resolved.

"While there are many issues that warrant the Senate's consideration, we feel that the Senate must not debate and consider bills at this time that do not affirmatively cut spending," reads a letter signed by the group of 10. "We, therefore, are notifying you of our intention to object to the consideration of any legislation that fails to directly address this crisis in a meaningful way."

The letter was signed by Republican Sens. David Vitter of Louisiana, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, John Ensign of Nevada, Mike Lee of Utah, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Marco Rubio of Florida, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Senate rules give individual members the power to block legislation indefinitely to force debate. The letter says that the members will blockade any unrelated bill that comes forward unless Reid dedicates "significant floor time" to the debate over debt and spending.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/10/republicans-threaten-senate-blockade-reid-doesnt-deal-debt-spending/#ixzz1GJahsiIO

Reid's office said, "After ignoring jobs for months, Republicans are making it official by vowing to block every bill that creates American jobs."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/10/republicans-threaten-senate-blockade-reid-doesnt-deal-debt-spending/#ixzz1GJahsiIO

OMFG!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Reid's office said, "After ignoring jobs for months, Republicans are making it official by vowing to block every bill that creates American jobs."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz1GJahsiIO

OMFG!

Quite ironic isn't it? They have been ignoring jobs for years.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Republicans stay and fight, not run away and hide:

They do the same thing as the WI Senators that left - and have done that for the last two years. Block the legislative process by any available means. It's courageous and right when the GOP does it but it's wrong and cowardly when the Democrats do it. Excellent!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Everyone in this thread realizes both parties are equally at fault in this correct?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

They do the same thing as the WI Senators that left - and have done that for the last two years. Block the legislative process by any available legal and accepted means. It's courageous and right when the GOP does it but it's wrong and cowardly when the Democrats do it. Excellent!

Fixed that for you!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Fixed that for you!

There's nothing 'accepted' about the skyrocketing use of the filibuster in the US Senate. And there's nothing illegal about Senators in WI not attending the sessions. Fail, my friend.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

There's nothing 'accepted' about the skyrocketing use of the filibuster in the US Senate. And there's nothing illegal about Senators in WI not attending the sessions. Fail, my friend.

Double fail for you. The filibuster is a legal move. And the Senators in WI leaving? Fail again, it is illegal for them to run away. It is a violation of their oath.

Edited March 11, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Double fail for you. The filibuster is a legal move. And the Senators in WI leaving? Fail again, it is illegal for them to run away. It is a violation of their oath.

Thats cool, the republicans may have also violated the law when they voted. I was taught very young that 2 wrongs do not make a right.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Thats cool, the republicans may have also violated the law when they voted. I was taught very young that 2 wrongs do not make a right.

May have violated the law. That remains to be seen. If the dems hadn't run away it would not have been needed and the outcome would have been the same.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thats cool, the republicans may have also violated the law when they voted. I was taught very young that 2 wrongs do not make a right.

How can that be? Legislative bodies are usually entitled to set their own rules on how to proceed. Courts are reluctant to get involved in such purely legislative matters, as is the executive.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Thats cool, the republicans may have also violated the law when they voted. I was taught very young that 2 wrongs do not make a right.

An overview of legal challenges to the controversial vote in Wisconsin

* March 10th, 2011 6:55 pm ET

Do you like this Article?

Today the Wisconsin General Assembly passed the collective bargaining aspects of Governor Walker's (R-WI) Budget Repair Bill with a 53-42 vote, following the Senate who passed the same bill with an 18-1 vote yesterday. The bill will now go to Governor Walker's desk where he will undoubtedly sign it. Democrats have already filed a complaint arguing that the entire process is moot since the Republicans broke Wisconsin law in passing the bill. More suits are sure to follow from the unions and possibly private citizens as well. Below is an overview of the major issues that will likely be considered by courts in the coming weeks and months.

Open Meetings Law

Last night the Republicans amended the bill through a conference committee meeting and vote. The video of that meeting can be seen here. In the meeting State Rep. Barca (D) strongly objected to the meeting itself, saying he had not received a summary of the legislation and also arguing the meeting violated Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. Republicans disagree, to say the least, and end up ignoring Barca, voting, and adjourning the meeting in minutes. In their complaint filed today the Democrats argue that the Republicans only gave the Democrats and the public two hours notice before the conference committee meeting, not the 24 hours required by law.

The Open Meetings law is covered by Chapter 19 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Chapter 19.83 states:

"Every meeting of a governmental body shall be preceded by public notice as provided in s. 19.84, and shall be held in open session.

At any meeting of a governmental body, all discussion shall be held and all action of any kind, formal or informal, shall be initiated, deliberated upon and acted upon only in open session except as provided in s. 19.85"

Section 19.84 provides:

"Public notice of all meetings of a governmental body shall be given in the following manner:

(a) As required by any other statutes; and

(b) By communication from the chief presiding officer of a governmental body or such person’s designee to the public, to those news media who have filed a written request for such notice, and to the official newspaper designated under ss. 985.04, 985.05 and 985.06 or, if none exists, to a news medium likely to give notice in the area.

(2) Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof. The public notice of a meeting of a governmental body may provide for a period of public comment, during which the body may receive information from members of the public.

(3) Public notice of every meeting of a governmental body shall be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of such meeting unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting."

There are, however, two problems for Democrats. First, the Republicans argue the meeting fell under the exceptions for a "special session" of the legislature (Wisconsin Statutes 19.87) and therefore the Open Meetings Law does not apply. Democrats argue there was not "good cause" for a special session. Secondly, the only penalty prescribed for a violation is a fine on the members who held the meeting. It is not entirely clear that a court would void the law even if the lawsuit was won.

Violation of Rule 3

Democrats also argue that the Republicans violated the legislature's own rules in the meeting. Barry Bump provides the best summary of this issue here. The relevant rule provides:

"(1) In all cases of disagreement between the senate and assembly on amendments, adopted by either house to a bill or joint resolution passed by the other house, a committee of conference consisting of 3 members from each house may be requested by either house, and the other house shall appoint a similar committee. At least one member from each house shall be a member of the minority party."

The problem for Republicans is that there was not one member from the minority party (Democrats) from the Senate at the conference committee meeting. The rule seems to require a Democrat from the General Assembly and Senate to be present. Bump notes that the Republicans can technically waive Rule 3 beforehand, but that it is not entirely clear they did so before sending the bill to conference committee. It is also unclear whether a court would declare the law void based on this violation of the legislature's own rules.

Violation of Wisconsin Constitution

Article VII, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution requires:

"On the passage in either house of the legislature of any law which imposes, continues or renews a tax, or creates a debt or charge, or makes, continues or renews an appropriation of public or trust money, or releases, discharges or commutes a claim or demand of the state, the question shall be taken by yeas and nays, which shall be duly entered on the journal; and three−fifths of all the members elected to such house shall in all such cases be required to constitute a quorum therein."

The quorum requirement is what has kept the Republicans from voting on the bill over the past three weeks. Republicans claim they got around the Wisconsin Constitution by separating out the collective bargaining provisions of the bill and voting on them separately. However, today Governor Walker admitted that the bill remained "fiscal" in nature, but still claimed the bill did not trigger the quorum requirement of the Wisconsin Constitution. Needless to say Democrats and the unions disagree, and are sure to make a claim based on a violation of the quorum requirement. The unions will argue the bill certainly "releases, discharges, or commutes a claim or demand of the state" by ridding the unions of collective bargaining rights. If they succeed a court might well say the law itself is void because of the violation

Violation of the "home rule" aspect of the Wisconsin Constitution

Today Milwaukee City Attorney Grant Langley argued in a legal opinion that the bill may violate the "home rule" aspects of the Wisconsin Constitution. Langley's opinion is being forwarded on by Milwaukee's mayor (a forceful opponent of the bill) to the Wisconsin attorney general. Essentially, Langley argues that the bill encroaches upon a territory which is specifically reserved for the local cities and counties. Specifically, Milwaukee argues the bill encroaches upon its right to determine the pension benefits of the workers in their cities.

https://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/an-overview-of-legal-challenges-to-the-controversial-vote-wisconsin

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

May have violated the law. That remains to be seen. If the dems hadn't run away it would not have been needed and the outcome would have been the same.

It appears that they did at least to me but yes the courts will figure it out. The clear solution from the beginning should have been layoffs if unions didn't capitulate.

[Zero Sum 305]

Thats cool, the republicans may have also violated the law when they voted. I was taught very young that 2 wrongs do not make a right.

++

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Double fail for you. The filibuster is a legal move. And the Senators in WI leaving? Fail again, it is illegal for them to run away. It is a violation of their oath.

I haven's said the filibuster is illegal - I have said that its abuse isn't accepted by the public. And the WI Senators haven't done anything illegal no matter how much you insist that they have.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

I haven's said the filibuster is illegal - I have said that its abuse isn't accepted by the public. And the WI Senators haven't done anything illegal no matter how much you insist that they have.

The filibuster is allowed by Senate rules. It isn't abuse at all. The WI didn't do anything illegal?

I guess that is why they are being fined $100 per day and had the state police sent to collect them if found in the state.