Collective bargaining "rights"??

[BenNatuf]

A filibuster is a proper parliamentary procedure which requires that the elected representatives actually SHOW UP FOR WORK.

Denying quorum is a legitimate parliamentary tactic. It's just one you don't like because it's the Democrats.

Again, if the GOP doesn't like it, they are free to wait or compromise.

And the WI constituion gives those legislators present or the governor the authority to compel attendance. So no, constitutionally, denying quorum by leaving the state and hiding out is not a legitimate parliamentary tactic.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How does a filibuster stop debate? A filibuster is a legislative tool the minority uses to CONTINUE debate...

This is an extremely naive understanding of how the filibuster has been used, both historically and under the current dual-track system.

There is a difference been the textbooks and the real world.

Don't expect much from Ben when it comes to reality. Ben's over there somewhere, and Reality is over here, and never the two shall meet.

His MO is to show up on a political board, take on a bullying stance towards anyone that disagrees with him, and eventually burn out in a spectacular violation of whatever rule of conduct the place has when people either ignore him or rebut him. I'm planning on ignoring him now he's here and start the popcorn popping. It'll be fun to see what it takes for him to get banned here.

 

[McDowell's]

A filibuster is a proper parliamentary procedure which requires that the elected representatives actually SHOW UP FOR WORK.

This is a silly distinction. Denying a quorum (either through absence or simply refusing to answer a quorum call) has not historically been an uncommon way to delay business in a legislative body that lacks a filibuster. See the "disappearing quorums" common in the U.S. House prior to Czar Reed's tenure as Speaker.

The question is whether obstruction by the minority is acceptable in representative government. And a person's answer to that seems to vary depending on whether or not they're sympathetic to the minority's policy preferences.

No, it is not a silly distinction. Filibuster is a recognized, acceptable form of delay. Denying quorom is not. The proof is demonstrated in the Wisconsin constitution which gives the governor and present legislators the power to compel absent lawmakers to appear. If quorom was an acceptable form of delay, why would the power to compel an end to the delay be granted? You are wrong whether you wish to admit it or not.

The excuse "it's been done before" is not an adequate argument for it's validity. That's something a teenager says to argue their case without even realizing it doesn't address the relevant issue. Not to mention the fact you're talking about the U.S. House and this is the Wisconsin legislature - two separate bodies with separate procedures.

 

[keee keee]

Democracy is only supported by deomcrats if it results in what democrats want I guess. Why did they even bother having elections in Wisconsin is my question?

The Govenor should fire these senators for not doing their job and send these LOSERS on the protest line with the teachers.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What they are doing is completely unprofessional and nothing resembles proper legislative action by these so called public servants. Criminals as far as Im concerned. Not that most politicians arent. These guys are just blatant about it.

You should really do some digging into Walker, the governor in question here. Ask yourself why it is that the public sector unions that supported him are exempt from all of his new restrictions and limitations.

There's quite a few things criminally corrupt here.

I personally support leaving to deny quorum. If the other side refuses to respect the minority, then the minority has to do what is legally within it's power to protect its rights. In this situation, the ability to compel attendance absolutely does not mean that choosing not to attend is against the law.

For the record, if it were reversed, I'd support the GOP senators doing the same. As a moderate, I get really angry at the whole tyranny of the majority thing.

 

[California Girl]

We stand in solidarity with the protesters and the brave 14 State Senators who are making a stand against Gov. Walker, his cronies, and the Koch brothers' blatant attack on workers' rights!
Please forward this petition to everyone you know who supports the 14 Democratic state senators who are fighting for workers rights!
thepetitionsite.com/158/support-the-wisconsin-14/

The Project for Social and Economic Equality supports their actions and will do everything in our power to get their message heard.
Daniel Lee,
Director, The Project for Social and Economic Equality

Wait, aren't you the drooling moron who started a thread calling the TEA Parties 'Nazis'? Oh yea. You were. What a fucking joke. They were 'Nazis' for protesting.... and the teachers are heroes.

How interesting. 'The project for social and economic equality'.... equal, as long as your liberal. Fucking hypocrite.

 

[McDowell's]

What they are doing is completely unprofessional and nothing resembles proper legislative action by these so called public servants. Criminals as far as Im concerned. Not that most politicians arent. These guys are just blatant about it.

You should really do some digging into Walker, the governor in question here. Ask yourself why it is that the public sector unions that supported him are exempt from all of his new restrictions and limitations.

There's quite a few things criminally corrupt here.

I personally support leaving to deny quorum. If the other side refuses to respect the minority, then the minority has to do what is legally within it's power to protect its rights. In this situation, the ability to compel attendance absolutely does not mean that choosing not to attend is against the law.

For the record, if it were reversed, I'd support the GOP senators doing the same. As a moderate, I get really angry at the whole tyranny of the majority thing.

Meeting of legislature. SECTION 11. [As amended Nov.
1881 and April 1968] The legislature shall meet at the seat of
government at such time as shall be provided by law, unless convened
by the governor in special session, and when so convened
no business shall be transacted except as shall be necessary to
accomplish the special purposes for which it was convened.
[1880 J.R. 9S, 1881 J.R. 7A, 1881 c. 262, vote Nov. 1881; 1965
J.R. 57, 1967 J.R. 48, vote April 1968]

When the legislature is in session, legislators are required to be there. According to the constitution at least. But it's just their constitution, it's not like that's the law or anything.

 

[keee keee]

Pay all these state workers what the average taxpayer makes!!!!! If they don't like it get a job in the public sector, and then have to do a real days labor!!! We all know how much work Government workers really do!!!! these losers get every hoilday that you can think of off that the majority of the public don't get off and have to fund it. their time has come to an end.

 

[McDowell's]

And it's not up to what I THINK or what you THINK. It's a matter of what their constitution says, and it says what you THINK is INCORRECT.

 

[boedicca]

It's not an inane idea. Constitutionally proper laws are ones that protect individual rights, and it is the responsibility of the government to enforce them.

Nor is there anything in my common that abrogates the individual for being responsible for protecting his own rights and self interest.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

What they are doing is completely unprofessional and nothing resembles proper legislative action by these so called public servants. Criminals as far as Im concerned. Not that most politicians arent. These guys are just blatant about it.

You should really do some digging into Walker, the governor in question here. Ask yourself why it is that the public sector unions that supported him are exempt from all of his new restrictions and limitations.

There's quite a few things criminally corrupt here.

I personally support leaving to deny quorum. If the other side refuses to respect the minority, then the minority has to do what is legally within it's power to protect its rights. In this situation, the ability to compel attendance absolutely does not mean that choosing not to attend is against the law.

For the record, if it were reversed, I'd support the GOP senators doing the same. As a moderate, I get really angry at the whole tyranny of the majority thing.

Meeting of legislature. SECTION 11. [As amended Nov.
1881 and April 1968] The legislature shall meet at the seat of
government at such time as shall be provided by law, unless convened
by the governor in special session, and when so convened
no business shall be transacted except as shall be necessary to
accomplish the special purposes for which it was convened.
[1880 J.R. 9S, 1881 J.R. 7A, 1881 c. 262, vote Nov. 1881; 1965
J.R. 57, 1967 J.R. 48, vote April 1968]

When the legislature is in session, legislators are required to be there. According to the constitution at least. But it's just their constitution, it's not like that's the law or anything.

Legislature and Legislators are two different things, much how a lot of the folks in these threads seem intent on making a difference between unions and teachers.

The legislature is required to meet, but no specific penalty or requirement is laid out there for the particular legislator.

For an similar situation, my class is required to meet at the appointed times, but for it to be against the rules for a student not to attend at that time requires additional rules to cover that. And my class meets with or without particular students.

Right now the legislature is meeting in Wisconsin. They just don't have quorum.

 

[Liability]

If you "support" the gutless maneuver of "denying a quorum" then you really aren't interested much in either democracy in general or a representative democracy in particular.

It looks like the Governor may now call for special elections to replace the fucking pussy Democrap Wisconsin "legislators" who have left their posts and fled their state. Screw 'em. Wisconsin Constitution ART. IV, Section 14.

"Filling vacancies. SECTION 14. The governor shall issue
writs of election to fill such vacancies as may occur in either
house of the legislature."

Those seats are pretty fucking VACANT. Boot them the fuck OUT!

 

[Trajan]

well well, count me shocked....kudo's.


Wisconsin: The Hemlock Revolution
Posted by Joe Klein Friday, February 18, 2011 at 12:51 pm






Revolutions everywhere--in the middle east, in the middle west. But there is a difference: in the middle east, the protesters are marching for democracy; in the middle west, they're protesting against it. I mean, Isn't it, well, a bit ironic that the protesters in Madison, blocking the state senate chamber, are chanting "Freedom, Democracy, Union" while trying to prevent a vote? Isn't it ironic that the Democratic Senators have fled the democratic process? Isn't it interesting that some of those who--rightly--protest the assorted Republican efforts to stymie majority rule in the U.S. Senate are celebrating the Democratic efforts to stymie the same in the Wisconsin Senate?

An election was held in Wisconsin last November. The Republicans won. In a democracy, there are consequences to elections and no one, not even the public employees unions, are exempt from that. There are no guarantees that labor contracts, including contracts governing the most basic rights of unions, can't be renegotiated, or terminated for that matter. We hold elections to decide those basic parameters. And it seems to me that Governor Scott Walker's basic requests are modest ones--asking public employees to contribute more to their pension and health care plans, though still far less than most private sector employees do. He is also trying to limit the unions' abilities to negotiate work rules--and this is crucial when it comes to the more efficient operation of government in a difficult time. When I covered local government in New York 30 years ago, the school janitors (then paid a robust $60,000 plus per year) had negotiated the "right" to mop the cafeteria floors only once a week. And we all know about the near-impossibility of getting criminal and morally questionable--to say nothing of less than competent--teachers fired. The negotiation of such contracts were acts of collusion rather than of mediation. Government officials were, in effect, bribing their most activist constituents.




more at-

Read more: Wisconsin: The Hemlock Revolution - Swampland - TIME.com

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If you "support" the gutless maneuver of "denying a quorum" then you really aren't interested much in either democracy in general or a representative democracy in particular.

It looks like the Governor may now call for special elections to replace the fucking pussy Democrap Wisconsin "legislators" who have left their posts and fled their state. Screw 'em. Wisconsin Constitution ART. IV, Section 14.

"Filling vacancies. SECTION 14. The governor shall issue
writs of election to fill such vacancies as may occur in either
house of the legislature."

Those seats are pretty fucking VACANT. Boot them the fuck OUT!

Typical Lieability. Lots of cursing. Vaguely bullying tone. And totally missing the point.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, it is not a silly distinction. Filibuster is a recognized, acceptable form of delay. Denying quorom is not. The proof is demonstrated in the Wisconsin constitution which gives the governor and present legislators the power to compel absent lawmakers to appear. If quorom was an acceptable form of delay, why would the power to compel an end to the delay be granted?

That's a bit like asking "if a filibuster was an acceptable form of delay, why would the power to end a filibuster be granted by Rule 22?" Paper wraps rock but scissors cut paper. The existence of Kryptonite doesn't imply Superman doesn't have superpowers.

Legitimacy is not defined as the absence of a counter-tactic.

The excuse "it's been done before" is not an adequate argument for it's validity.

Again, the question is whether parliamentary gimmicks ought to be used for obstruction in representative government. I don't think anyone's currently questioning the effectiveness of the Wisconsin 14's current tactic. What's happening now is real and it's having the obstructive effect they desire. Your point about "validity" is one of values--how decent legislators ought to act--not results. The proof that they "can" do it is offered by the fact that they are doing it. Thus it becomes an "ought" question.

 

[McDowell's]

You should really do some digging into Walker, the governor in question here. Ask yourself why it is that the public sector unions that supported him are exempt from all of his new restrictions and limitations.

There's quite a few things criminally corrupt here.

I personally support leaving to deny quorum. If the other side refuses to respect the minority, then the minority has to do what is legally within it's power to protect its rights. In this situation, the ability to compel attendance absolutely does not mean that choosing not to attend is against the law.

For the record, if it were reversed, I'd support the GOP senators doing the same. As a moderate, I get really angry at the whole tyranny of the majority thing.

Meeting of legislature. SECTION 11. [As amended Nov.
1881 and April 1968] The legislature shall meet at the seat of
government at such time as shall be provided by law, unless convened
by the governor in special session, and when so convened
no business shall be transacted except as shall be necessary to
accomplish the special purposes for which it was convened.
[1880 J.R. 9S, 1881 J.R. 7A, 1881 c. 262, vote Nov. 1881; 1965
J.R. 57, 1967 J.R. 48, vote April 1968]

When the legislature is in session, legislators are required to be there. According to the constitution at least. But it's just their constitution, it's not like that's the law or anything.

Legislature and Legislators are two different things, much how a lot of the folks in these threads seem intent on making a difference between unions and teachers.

The legislature is required to meet, but no specific penalty or requirement is laid out there for the particular legislator.

For an similar situation, my class is required to meet at the appointed times, but for it to be against the rules for a student not to attend at that time requires additional rules to cover that. And my class meets with or without particular students.

Right now the legislature is meeting in Wisconsin. They just don't have quorum.

Yes what a similar situation. Is there a standing law that you can be compelled to attend you class? Thought not.

I know those are two different things. But the fact that the legislature MUST meet and the fact that legislators can be compelled to attend against there will belies your belief that denying quorom is a legal delaying tactic. If it was completely permissible, then there would be no function for compelling the end of the tactic. A lack of punishment does not indicate legality.

Your class example is not remotely similar. The most blatant being there is no rule for compulsory attendance. You admit that yourself, and if that were the case then obviously attendance would be REQUIRED - thus the need for the ability to compel performance. If attendance is not required, what basis for compelling attendance would there be? If you can't see that, I'm arguing with a wall.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

A lack of punishment does not indicate legality.

And the contrapositive is also true, namely legality is not indicated by punishment. Legality is indicated specifically by a legal code applying to the individual legislator, which is not present here. The only thing that can be said here is that if a legislator decides not to attend, they can be compelled to attend, but not that they are breaking the law.

If the State of Wisconsin feels they are breaking the law, they can apply to the State of Illinois for extradition to Wisconsin. The offending Senators aren't exactly hiding.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

BTW, with the classroom example, I do have plenty of things I can do to compel attendance. I can contact advisors, administration, parents, give pop quizzes, etc. I can even get their financial aid pulled if I can document they have excessive absence (wild right?).

That still doesn't make it necessarily against the rules for them to skip unless there is a specific rule in the syllabus to that effect.

A lot of folks in this thread are making the false assumption that the ability to compel attendance means that they are legally obliged to attend. The Legislature is meeting in Madison, it just lacks quorum.

 

[BenNatuf]

How does a filibuster stop debate? A filibuster is a legislative tool the minority uses to CONTINUE debate...

This is an extremely naive understanding of how the filibuster has been used, both historically and under the current dual-track system.

There is a difference been the textbooks and the real world.

Don't expect much from Ben when it comes to reality. Ben's over there somewhere, and Reality is over here, and never the two shall meet.

His MO is to show up on a political board, take on a bullying stance towards anyone that disagrees with him, and eventually burn out in a spectacular violation of whatever rule of conduct the place has when people either ignore him or rebut him. I'm planning on ignoring him now he's here and start the popcorn popping. It'll be fun to see what it takes for him to get banned here.

Is that so? I think you're psychic abilities are a bit failing there cleo. And as far as reality goes I hate to break it to you but my analysis on the filibuster is the correct version of reality.

 

[BenNatuf]

What they are doing is completely unprofessional and nothing resembles proper legislative action by these so called public servants. Criminals as far as Im concerned. Not that most politicians arent. These guys are just blatant about it.

You should really do some digging into Walker, the governor in question here. Ask yourself why it is that the public sector unions that supported him are exempt from all of his new restrictions and limitations.

demonstrably false. the ONLY public sector unions that endorsed him were the Milwakee locals of the police and fire unions and they did so LONG after his position was known. The rest of them supported his opponent.

I personally support leaving to deny quorum. If the other side refuses to respect the minority, then the minority has to do what is legally within it's power to protect its rights. In this situation, the ability to compel attendance absolutely does not mean that choosing not to attend is against the law.

refusing to do what the government has the authority to compel you to do is by definition "illegal".

For the record, if it were reversed, I'd support the GOP senators doing the same. As a moderate, I get really angry at the whole tyranny of the majority thing.

I would not.