1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

The fiasco in Austin

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003.

  1. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    Ditto. I was just pointing out that if one wanted the Democrats to apologize for something they did in the past, one would have to expect the Republicans to apologize as well.
     
  2. mrpaige

    mrpaige Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2000
    Messages:
    8,831
    Likes Received:
    15
    And I think I wasn't clearly articulating my opinion when I said an apology was in order.

    What I really meant was that I wanted them to learn from their past and acknowledge the past of the party as part of that learning and now that they're on the other side and see how it is, change that behavior for the future (or work to change it).

    I guess because just being outraged at Republicans for what they're doing doesn't necessarily mean that the Democrats want the procedure changed to avoid these issues even when they are in power. To say it's wrong when it's the other guy is easy. To say it's always wrong is harder, but more honest.

    So to me, for the outrage to ring true, there has to be some realization or acknowledgement that the Democratic Party was wrong in the past, too.

    Otherwise, it just sounds like they're saying "We think it's wrong because Republicans are doing it. It was fine when we did it." And in that case, I think they deserve what they get. Sort of a reaping what you sow kind of thing.

    Now, if you're issue is the timing of the thing alone like andymoon, that's obviously a different matter.
     
  3. Rocketman95

    Rocketman95 Hangout Boy

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    48,984
    Likes Received:
    1,445
    I'd be with you all the way mrpaige had this happened in 2011. You can assume all you want to about how the Democrats will react then, but we're talking about Republicans attempting to redistrict when it's not traditionally done.

    EDIT: I obviously didn't read to your last sentence, mrpaige. :D
     
  4. Mango

    Mango Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    10,189
    Likes Received:
    5,636

    Are you saying that it was wrong (in a legal sense) for the Republican legislators to try to compel the absent Democrats to show up to form a quorum?

    ps Sorry about that mrpaige.............things happen.
     
  5. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    It was wrong for a FEDERAL official to get the FBI involved when, legally, they couldn't do anything.

    It was a matter for Texas and the Governor to deal with, not the man behind the marionettes.
     
  6. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,862
    Likes Received:
    41,378
    Yes, it was wrong, but not according to me, according to the Bush administration:


    Epilogue: They cleared the the DHS employees of any wrongdoing after they became aware it was a partisan squabble and did not intervene other than to offer cursory initial assistance.

    So yeah, it was wrong, unless those Republican lawmakers and DPS troopers working for them were actually concerned about Pete Laney's safety and thought that Terrorists had attacked his plane. I'm sure that was it.
     
    #86 SamFisher, Jul 9, 2003
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2003
  7. Mango

    Mango Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    10,189
    Likes Received:
    5,636
    The Homeland Security part was extreme, but the Republicans seemed to be within their rights to pursue the wayward Democrats so a quorum could be formed. Protests by the Democrats about the expenditure of manpower to find them seems misplaced.


    <a HREF="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/outlook/1971160">Both parties ignored Texas Constitution</a>

    <i>The Texas Legislature is about to open a special session called by Gov. Rick Perry to deal with congressional redistricting.

    Why? Because in May, a very unusual political event occurred here, so unusual that media across the country covered the story. Comedy Central even poked fun at Texas, Denny's restaurants and the Holiday Inn in Ardmore, Okla. Fifty-one Democratic legislators had left Texas for Ardmore to prevent a quorum in the Texas House of Representatives and thus kill a bill on redistricting.

    Republican leaders called these Democrats "childish" and "cowardly." They argued that true Texans stand and fight for their cause, even if they lose. The Democrats' supporters called them courageous and smart. They argued they simply used the political system and its rules to their advantage. Who was right?

    Now that the dust has cleared, let's look. The biggest omission in all the media coverage and political stories has been the Texas Constitution.

    Our state constitution provides for this exact situation, and it is amazing that the people of Texas have not been better informed of this key fact.

    The founders of Texas gathered together during a hot Texas summer in 1845 to craft the first constitution of the state of Texas. They crafted a very thoughtful system, which included the requirement of a quorum of two-thirds. A quorum is the number of legislators required to be present before the House can begin. While only a majority is needed to pass a bill, there must be at least two-thirds of the House present to open business. This ensures the majority may not gather in secret without the opportunity for the minority to join the debate. It also ensures that a catastrophe, such as losing a large number of legislators in an accident or war, does not afford a political opportunity to the majority who could meet quickly before replacement representatives were appointed.

    Yet these writers of the Texas Constitution also realized that legislators making up the minority could easily subvert this process and misuse the quorum requirement by simply refusing to show up (for example, fleeing to Oklahoma). This would allow the requirement of a quorum to be used as a bargaining chip rather than its real purpose of ensuring open participation and debate.

    So these wise men added a provision to the quorum requirement (then Article III, Section 12) which is still in place today. Article III, Section 10 of the current Texas Constitution states that a smaller number of legislators than the quorum may "compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide."

    Very simply, the Texas founders highly disapproved of intentionally being absent to avoid a quorum. They disapproved so much that they gave those legislators in attendance, though less than a quorum, great and expansive powers. The House members who are there may act "in such manner" and assess "such penalties" as they decide. Such expansive powers are rarely given -- to anyone.

    The Texas founders clearly thought this was important. To do nothing to compel attendance of absent legislators is tantamount to allowing our constitutional legislative process to be intentionally hijacked for the political gain of a small group. The remaining House members have a constitutional duty to have criminal arrest warrants issued to compel the return of the missing legislators and fine them severely if they don't.

    Neither Democrats nor Republicans are heroes in the May debacle. It is not courage but dereliction of duty to refuse to show up for your constitutional obligations in the Legislature. Quorum is intended to ensure the full participation of all voices, not the tyranny of the minority.

    It is also wrong, as the Republicans did, to stand idly by and do nothing to enforce our constitution or the democratic-republican forum of government it sets in place. All that is necessary for the destruction of our state constitution system is for good men and women to do nothing.

    I hope such a debacle never happens again, but if it does, criminal arrest warrants should be issued and penalties assessed, and they should be severe. Our constitution and state deserve nothing less. </i>

    From the:

    <a HREF="http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000300-001000.html">Texas Constitution: Article 3 - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT: Section 10 - QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE</a>


    <b>Two-thirds of each House 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. </b>
     
  8. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,792
    Likes Received:
    41,232
    That was an opinion peice, Mango. I've been pelloried by some on here when I posted articles that were from actual reporters. You should have pointed that out, bro.

    No one wishes that they hadn't left more than the Democrats who did. It was a politicians nightmare... especially in Texas. In my opinion, and in the opinion of a lot of people, they did what they had to do.

    And I think the use of the Office of Homeland Security (I'll never get used to us being described as a "homeland"... it sounds Russian or German or something... not that there's anything wrong with that ;) ) was wrong and the subsequent "investigation" was a whitewash. But that's just my opinion.
     
  9. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,862
    Likes Received:
    41,378
    Extreme? More like illegal to misuse federal government resources and also likely illegal to intentionally make a false report to law enforcement authorities about a missing plane.
     
  10. Mango

    Mango Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    10,189
    Likes Received:
    5,636

    It is an opinion piece, but he does base it on something he found in the Texas Constitution. Legal interpretation of his points I have to leave for the lawyers to perform. If somebody can refute it (on a legal basis), then I would be interested in reading it.
     
  11. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,862
    Likes Received:
    41,378
    On a legal basis, the writer states no justification other than his own opinion regarding the powers granted:

    "Very simply, the Texas founders highly disapproved of intentionally being absent to avoid a quorum. They disapproved so much that they gave those legislators in attendance, though less than a quorum, great and expansive powers. The House members who are there may act "in such manner" and assess "such penalties" as they decide. Such expansive powers are rarely given -- to anyone"

    This is total speculation. Is similar phraseology as rare as this writer implies it is? I don't know. Are such powers rarely given? By who? By Texas? By other states? Again, I don't know. The writer doesn't tell me.

    As a legal matter, you have to cite something for this. A paragraph like this wouldn't make it into any legitimate law review article or other scholarship.
     
  12. Mango

    Mango Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    10,189
    Likes Received:
    5,636
    SamFisher,

    What does the Constitution exclude in the area of <b>compel</b>?
     
    #92 Mango, Jul 9, 2003
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2003
  13. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,862
    Likes Received:
    41,378
    I don't know. I didn't write the article and I have other stuff that I am getting paid to look up so I can't bother with that right now. I just picked out that one paragraph because it jumped out at me.

    But if you're going to make a legal argument, you got to bring morre than what the writer brought. Not just citing the text and saying what he thinks it should mean.
     
  14. Mango

    Mango Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    10,189
    Likes Received:
    5,636
    SamFisher

    The Democrats did take a greater step than in the past by crossing the state border, as opposed to remaining in seclusion inside Texas.

    The next (greater step) for the Republicans was to push the part in the Texas Constitution about compelling the Democrats to appear to form a quorum.



    I have yet to find anything that agrees or disagrees with the writer's interpretation of that part of the Texas Constitution which reads quite similar to the United States Constitution in regards to quorums.


    <a HREF="http://memory.loc.gov/const/const.html">THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES</a>

    <i>..............Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; <b> but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide..............</b></i>

    <a HREF="http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000300-001000.html">The Texas Constitution
    Article 3 - LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
    Section 10 - QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE</a>

    <i>Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business,<b> 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. </b></i>



    I did find this in regards to compelling people to appear for a quorum to be formed at the national level.

    <a HREF="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/campaign/issues/1988_retro.html">The Politics: Resisting Change and Resisting Arrest</a>

    <i>......Democrats, angered by the continued filibuster, forced Republicans to stay on the floor around the clock. As time continued, Senate Majority leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) used a little known provision to order the Senators to the floor at 12:30 in the morning. When Republicans refused to heed the order, Byrd used another provision to compel the hold-outs.

    "Madame President, I move that the Seargent-at-Arms be instructed to arrest absent senators and bring them to floor," Byrd said.

    Many Republicans fled from the Sergeant-at-Arms and at one point Senator Bob Packwood (R-OR) was bodily carried onto the floor of the Senate.

    A report on the ensuing search was published in The Washington Post on February 25, 1988:


    Shortly before midnight, [Sergeant-at-Arms Henry K.] Giugni and five armed Capitol Police plainsclothesmen began scouring senators' hideaways in the Capitol and their suites in nearby office buildings. They spotted Senator Steven Symms (R-ID), but he fled before they could apprehend him.
    Giugni found Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr (R-CT) in his hideaway. Weicker, a man of formidable size and temper, refused to submit. Giugni, who was later praised by all sides for his poise under fire, decided to look elsewhere.

    This brought his to Packwood, who -- having heard that the Giugni posse was on the prowl -- had locked the doors of his Russell Building office, barricading one of them with a chair. But Giugni had a passkey and entered the outer office. Packwood, hearing the intruders, jammed his shoulder against his door just as Giugni was coming through, reinjuring a finger that he had broken two weeks ago in Oregon.

    Republicans denounced Senator Byrd's actions and expressed outrage at the arrest order and at Sen. Packwood's injury in particular.

    "Senator's Packwood fingers will heal, but I don't know if the United States Senate will heal," said Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) on the floor the next day. "The scar tissue is going very deep at this time in the life of the Senate as a result of what happened yesterday."

    But Republicans were not alone in their anger at the night's events.

    "Senators went off at a dead sprint. They should have been in Calgary in one of the Olympic events up there," Senator Dale Bumpers angrily declared. "The spectacle of United States Senators running from the Sergeant-at-Arms in order to keep from being compelled to attend the United States Senate is an outrage."

    Democrats abandoned the reform bill after the Senate failed to invoke cloture, or end the filibuster, eight times.
    <i>
     
  15. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,862
    Likes Received:
    41,378
    Interesting, I didn't know that the US const had the same provision. If the writer had told me that in the article and cited it I would have given his editorial more weight.

    However, it does call into question the writers speculation about the Texas const. framers being the "wise men" who specifically inserted this provision during the hot summer of 1845 about quorums adn compelling attendance in an act of extreme prescience and foresight.

    More likely, the drafter copied large swaths of Article 1 from the US const cause he thought it looked good, and everybody else saw it int he US const and thought it was a decent enough idea, and there it goes. Not that it matters, ultimately, but it does make it seem like the writer of the editorial is speculating about original intent for his own benefit. If he'd cited the US const, like you did, I wouldn't have questioned it as quickly.
     
    #95 SamFisher, Jul 9, 2003
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2003
  16. Mango

    Mango Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    10,189
    Likes Received:
    5,636
    SamFisher

    I didn't know it either until you forced me to do some research.

    Good Night.
     

Share This Page