Posted on 01/25/2011 7:51:38 AM PST by Dead Corpse
Hughes Amendment vote on YouTube.
This is archival footage of the proceedings from when the Hughes Amendment was illegally added to the FOPA of 1986. Ajax22 over at AR15.com got his hands on one of the recently released DVD's of Congressional proceedings.
In the above video, we hear a voice vote (that to my ears goes to the Nays) that Rangel calls for the Ayes, a call for a recorded vote that is ignored violating the Congressional Rules at the time, and an absolute cluster-fudge over the rest of the FOPA bill including exactly which Amendments made it on and which didn't.
Before, a lot of the Congressional record was subject to interpretation. Now, we can see it with our eyes and KNOW this wasn't passed into law properly.
Be Ever Vigilant!
That isn't just a violation of House rules, it's criminal.
Using criminal and Charlie Rangel in the same sentence?! I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED!
Of course, it is not criminal, as the House sets its own rules and polices its own.
Otherwise, what? You're going to let the minority leader (Pelosi) send the capitol police to arrest the majority leader or speaker (Cantor....Boehner?)?
As a point of order, any congressman could've objected and the house could've fixed the parliamentary (intentional) error.
It could've been voted down in the full recorded vote. It could've been voted down in S. 49. It could've been vetoed by Reagan.
Everyone failed, sure. Nobody stepped up to fix it. But the process is, ugly as it is, what it is. You cannot have capitol police enforcing House rules on the minority's say-so.
I'd love to read that book, but the going rate (Amazon - new around $250, used around $150) is out of my range.
Two points. First of all, if the rules are violated, then yes, there is the possibility of criminal conduct. Read Roberts Rules and how the law applies for further explanation.
Secondly, watch the video to see exactly what happened and how the objections were either ignored or slapped down.
Sorry but action is going to be taken concerning this. One way or another, the Hughes Amendment is going away.
Why are you 'sorry' that action will be taken? It's a GOOD thing if this goes away. So no reason to be sorry.
And like you say. It will be taken care of through the process.
But Rangle will not be criminally liable for anything, no matter how egregious. Why wasn't this taken care of by the 1994 congress?
Later on, Reps were calling for a reading of all included amendments and were ignored. They may not have even known the Hughes amendment was included in the final vote.
Sorry, but this is criminal.
I know that Rangel won’t be criminally charged even though he should be. However, we’re going to make sure that everyone knows exactly what he did. He can explain his BS to his constituents.
The 1994 Congress refused to touch guns on any front. Had they done otherwise, the Democrats would have lost more sooner but the Republicans lacked the stones to go for it.
I’m working with a couple of Congressmen on this now. We do have an avenue to deal with this and we’re researching what it’s going to take to make it happen.
I was a few months old when this passed.
I’ve got about 5 years on ya. At least we’re both on the same team now.
I was 17 and contemplating going into the Marines. I had zero interest in politics at the time.
“Sorry, but this is criminal.”
Fine! I agree. It is criminal. It is not a violation of the penal code.
That’s bull. I had to special order a copy of I think the 6th printing of Unintended Consequences. It wasn’t more than $25.
With what? Charged with violation of what law? By whom?
Further, it should invalidate the passage of the Amendment as part of the FOPA. Under severability, the rest of it should stand as passed.
Yeah, well that's great! Now tell me how you implement that.
"Severability" refers to judicial review. The judiciary has "Administrative Review" where it can meddle with actions by agencies which Congress creates, and that might well be a worthwhile venue in the interim...against the BATF, etc...
However, Judicial Review cannot spill into House Rules. In that case, the Judiciary can essentially control the legislative process, and obviously that cannot be allowed no matter how much crap is coming out of Congress.
You might not want to assume everyong knows what FOPA is. I’m pretty knowledgable about gun stuff, and I had to google it.
Judicial review might not be able to tell Congress how to write their rules, but it sure as hell can invalidate legislation for improper passage. Not to mention violating the 2nds “shall not be infringed” clause.
Do you remember where you ordered it from?
Barnes & Noble
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.