Freepmail or ping me on the thread to be added to the John Armor for Congress ping list.
Also, new debate video from last Saturday's North Carolina 11th District convention, courtesy of Thunder Pig.
Posted on 05/01/2008 11:33:24 AM PDT by MitchellC
For more than two months, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has denied members of that chamber the opportunity to vote on one of the most important pieces of national security legislation before Congress this year. That legislation is a bipartisan bill passed by the Senate in February that would grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies which helped the government monitor terrorist communications after September 11. So, House Republicans, led by Reps. Vito Fossella and Peter King of New York, are seeking to get around this obstructionism by employing a "discharge petition." If 218 House members sign the petition, the House would get to vote on the issue no matter what Mrs. Pelosi says.
As of yesterday afternoon, Mr. Fossella and Mr. King had gotten 184 members — all of them Republicans — to sign the petition, which began circulating eight days ago. But with Democrats comprising a 234-198 majority of the House, the discharge petition will fail unless at least 20 members of the majority party are willing to defy Mrs. Pelosi and the rest of the party leadership in order to sign — an act that could jeopardize a member's political career (at least if he or she intends to remain a Democrat and a member of the House). The logical place to look for these Democratic votes is the House Blue Dog Coalition — a group of self-styled moderates and even a few conservative Democrats. Twenty-one Blue Dog members signed a Jan. 28 letter to Mrs. Pelosi urging support for the Senate bill, but the speaker ignored them. Three times this year, she has sent the House on vacation rather than allowing them to vote on FISA.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Freepmail or ping me on the thread to be added to the John Armor for Congress ping list.
It is my understanding that an ex post facto law would make a crime of an act that was legal at the time the act was committed. It eliminates retroactive prosecution. It has nothing to do with retroactive immunities.
ex post facto is an interesting idea here, but the original intent was to keep the government from passing a law that made prior acts illegal. The law being proposed doesn’t put anyone in jeopardy. However, it does revoke the ability for wronged parties to seek redress for prior acts. [assuming you believe that there were any wronged parties]
If they need 218 house members to sign and and they have 184, why do they only need 20 more ?
Blue Witches fail to whimper.
A few Democrats support the bill already. They need a majority to force a floor vote.
Odds are, most of them are touting their "co-sponsorship" of the Bill to prove their "conservative" credentials in their Districts. That's exactly what Shuler is doing, here in the 11th District.
If they really wanted the Bill to pass, they would sign the Discharge. But Nancy Pelosi, whom they all voted to install as Speaker, has them on a short leash. That proves they are, in fact, liberals, not conservatives.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Lesley Stahl vs. Antonin Scalia in the Court of Public Opinion"
John / Billybob
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.