Posted on 12/16/2005 2:34:00 PM PST by anonymoussierra
I'm also curious, however, why the use of "cloture" is so contentious...I've heard many times that the Senate threatens and then defines "cloture" as nearly abominable but I don't understand why.
I realize that debate is necessary and closing it is poor judgement on many issues but at some point, Senators have a responsibility to move on and act.
I'm just curious what opinions are as to why the very mention of "cloture" is so ominous and threatening to some.
dictatorial police powers ? A bit extreme of a term , don't you think ?
ha, probably the ACLU.
Which is why they're leading the efforts to destroy national security.
How much "freedom" have you LOST since the Patriot Act was enacted?
Freedom isn't free. Some of us consider sacrifice to be necessary particularly where wars are concerned. Democrats don't want "freedom," they want anarchy.
We'll be real free when one of these bastards blows off a nuke in a major city . Then we can all brag how we didn't let the feds get to much power as we bury tens of thousands . The next one will make 9/11 look like picnic. Stupid country getting dumber all the time.
Dirty Rotten Enemy aiders and abettors.
I hope they all die painful and ignominious deaths...soon.
Maybe a terrorist cell will poison gas a meeting
of all these 'Rats....I can hope...can't I?
The Patriot Act does not require me to release *any* of my feedoms..Whereas the DimoRats, want us to surrender *all* our free will to the state. a burgeoning monolithic topheavy
soviet style state, that is boundf to collapse on top
of their pompous buffoning blathering heads from the weight of all their strangulating idiotic "laws" that they make for
"our own good".
I can only hope that the important parts of the "16 provisions" are put back into a NEW version of the Patriot Act (tearing down the wall b/t govt. agencies)...which "Leaky" promised would be "Bi-Partisan"...can't wait for that one (sarcasm)
We are playing right into the hands of those who would harm us most . They are VERY patient and knew damn well we'd drop our pants again and take our eyes off the ball eventually. We just did .I've all but given up on this ountry . We now have a senate that dosent have the balls to protect the American public.
Here's the unfortunate truth...the Republicans have made us LESS SAFE these past 2 days w/ their capitulating on Liberal policies...Yesterday it was Bush and Liberal Congressmen signing on to the McCain Anti-Torture/"Degrading" Bill, and today, they kill the Patriot Act...We need to remember this if and when we get attacked again...
No "IF's" about it in my mind. Just when ..We now have made it easier for 9/11 to happen again.Next one will be way more serious.
There are two mechanisms to get to the vote. One is unanimous consent. This is BY FAR the most common route.
Cloture is a substitute for unanimous consent. Cloture prevents a small minority of Senators from stifling the vote.
Nominally, the function of cloture is to insure that all voters in the body are adequately informed and have have adequate time to advocate their position before the vote is taken. It is an abuse of cloture to hold the body from voting, once the voter has formed a position and has had an opportunity to advocate it.
Which issue? The underlying matter, the conference report version of the Patriot Act, survives a failure of cloture. If cloture passed, it would limit debate to a maximum time certain and would hold the Patriot Act as the sole business of the Senate until it (the act) was voted on. But failure of cloture just means that debate can continue for an indefinite period.
There is no limit to the number of cloture motions that can be brought on a single bill.
There is a reason that Frist filed a Motion to Reconsider, but the reason wasn't "so that the issue could be brought up again later." That right exists regardless of the Motion to Reconsider (the cloture vote).
That you believe it is bad ;-)
You think it's a GOOD thing that intelligence agencies can't talk to each other?
They can, and should be able to.
My post hinted that it's bad to believe that the absence of the Gorelick Wall is tied to renewal of the Patriot Act.
I thought it was through the Patriot Act that the Wall was dismantled; was that handled separately?
The Gorelick Wall was an unnecessary limitation (it was more restrictive than existing law), erected by the DoJ. The DoJ was free to replace its rule with one that toed the line with the law, and at that point, information sharing is permissible.
Separate from that, but in a similar vein, the provisions of law that permit sharing have been duplicated in a section of law that does not sunset on 12/31/2005.
USA Patriot Act Sunset: Provisions That Expire on December 31, 2005
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL32186.pdf
See, in particular, the discussion of section 218.
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.