Wisconsin Senate passes resolution calling for Democrats to be taken into police custody

Any senator in any state that chooses to flee to another state to slow down these processes, instead of staying and fighting for their view, should be fired from their position. If a soldier flees from duty to another country, is it not a sort of treason, in the eyes of the government? What makes this any different?

And not that I actually agree with how our country is run now a days but we're running in a "mob rule", and if they didn't have the votes or the senators there to even vote for these laws, then they lost. Plain and simple. Workers don't like it? Well, I'm sure a lot of people don't like a lot of things that go through our government but we get stuck with these things anyways. It doesn't give them the right to not do their jobs even if they are facing defeat. At least stand and fight as hard as you can for those you're supposed to be representing. Don't be a coward, especially if running to another state isn't going to stop bills from being passed anyways.

Since they have abandoned their jobs and abdicated their duties, why haven't expedited impeachment proceedings begun along with efforts to replace them? Military people and firefighters/ LEOs don't enjoy this kind of special treatment, why should they? Certainly, in the private sector, they would be fired at once.
What better way to make the point about "public servants" sense of entitlement- literally at the expense of the taxpayers? Way to go, dems!

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by works4dhs
someone has to enforce the law. the Wis Sen Dems are violating the law and their oaths by refusing to do their job.

What law are they violating?

You must know the exact law if you are making that statement.


And they are keeping their oaths...they are allowing for debate and protests so the law isn't rushed through before anyone knows what happened.

Should I even bother to check your position on obamacare being shoved through by "pole vault over it/dig under it Pelosi?

reply to post by rogerstigers


Section 7 at this point in time has no bearing, only in the sense of the Democrats absence. If we are discussing ONLY the absence of the representatives, Section 7 is moot, but Section 5, addresses the membership rules, and adjournment. That is the only topic Im discussing on this thread. Just to clarify.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

The Wisconsin police have no authority or jurisdiction to go into Illinois to get these democrats.


To bring them back by force is wrong...if you agree with that action then I should never hear you complain about a "police state".

To cross state lines and forcibly bring them back constitutes kidnapping, and should be treated as such.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

Interesting.. I didn't read that far down when I quoted Article 7.

Wonder if Wisconson's congress will start expelling these 14 members and force a new election?

Wisconsin Republicans in the senate don't have a 2/3rds majority in order to do this. They would need some votes from the 14 democrates.

The Wisconsin Senate only has 33 members.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

Absolutely wonderfuly hypocritical.

Definately not arguing with you there.. Hypocrisy running amok has become the hallmark of politics these days.

For the record, I do not see these Democrats as lazy crybabies. They took the only action they felt would give them leverage. There is nothing in their constitution that states that what they did was illegal or even wrong. Seriously, how is this move any differant than a fillibuster?

However, there is always a consequence to ones actions. The consequence in this case is the Republicans enacting their right to bring those Democrats back to the capital "by whatever means necessary".

reply to post by MindSpin


I do agree with you in the sense that the LEA's of that area, shouldn't have the right to " detain " representatives.

However, we aren't discussing what I think. They are being deemed, in a sense, as " contempt " in the Legislative setting.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Section 7 at this point in time has no bearing, only in the sense of the Democrats absence. If we are discussing ONLY the absence of the representatives, Section 7 is moot, but Section 5, addresses the membership rules, and adjournment. That is the only topic Im discussing on this thread. Just to clarify.

Apologies.. was confused... apparently, section 7 and section 5 start with the same paragraph?? Kinda wierd, but it probably makes sense in the full context of their constitution.

reply to post by rogerstigers

There is nothing in their constitution that states that what they did was illegal or even wrong.

According Article 1 section 5, they are in direct violation of that Section, and would be deemed and " illegal " act within the courts, ( provided they went to a court to begin with ).

Further, under Article 1 Section 8,

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

These representatives, are in breach of the Powers vested in them as representatives. So now they are in violation of not 1 but a couple Sections of the Articles.

Originally posted by works4dhs
someone has to enforce the law. the Wis Sen Dems are violating the law and their oaths by refusing to do their job.

The 14 are doing the peoples work right now they are doing what is right. The people are there to support them and that's the job of all elected officials serve the people.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


They are using the language of "detain" because it is illegal for a member of the Wisconsin state legislature to be arrested while it is in session.

They are using semantics in order to be able to use the police as their goon squad.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I think we are looking at a differant version of their constitution. I just double checked the pieces you mentioned and I don't see anything close to what you are saying. I am using this copy: legis.wisconsin.gov...

reply to post by rogerstigers


Theres your problem. Though the Wisconsin state constitution is enacted, THE Constitution of the nation, is the one you need to reference. It supersedes all state enacted Constitutions.

www.usconstitution.net...

reply to post by MindSpin


True to a degree.....because " session " is unable to officially commence, it could be argued that " session " actually isnt in session.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I see. However, the day to day functions of Congress as outlined in the US Consitution do not apply to the Wisconson legislature.

reply to post by MindSpin

And they are keeping their oaths...they are allowing for debate and protests so the law isn't rushed through before anyone knows what happened.

Darn, I wish the Senate Republicans had done that when Obama rammed through his Healthcare plan.

Maybe next time.

reply to post by rogerstigers


To a degree I would agree, however, in a case where " business " is unable to commence, the US Articles govern.

However even in this case...using your own source, take note : Article VI

Rules; contempts; expulsion.

SECTION 8.

Each house may determine the rules of its own proceedings, punish for contempt and disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two− thirds of all the members elected, expel a member; but no member shall be expelled a second time for the same cause.

It says the same thing as the US Constitution. It says the same for a reason. To commence legislative action with no quarrels. As I have said throughout our conversation, they would be " deemed " held in contempt. Which we are seeing addressed in your source.

legis.wisconsin.gov...

Originally posted by ThinkingCap
Why run?
Why not vote no?

Because they don't have the #'s

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by MindSpin

 

And they are keeping their oaths...they are allowing for debate and protests so the law isn't rushed through before anyone knows what happened.

Darn, I wish the Senate Republicans had done that when Obama rammed through his Healthcare plan.

Maybe next time.

Like I told someone else...the healthcare reform was debated for well over a year before anything was ever passed. Much longer than most pieces of legislation.


You have a strange definition of "rammed through".