Skip to comments.
SENATE SANCTIONS TEXAS 11 WITH FINES
www.quorumreport.com ^
| 8/12/03
| Harvey (the biased) Kronberg
Posted on 08/12/2003 4:27:21 PM PDT by harpu
After hours of backroom meetings, seventeen Senators convened to sanction their eleven colleagues in New Mexico. Senator Jane Nelson (R-Flower Mound) introduced a resolution imposing fines to be paid out of private funds beginning August 14. The fines would begin at $1,000 a day and double per day up to $5,000 per day until the end of the second called-session.
After parliamentary inquiry by Senator Ken Armbrister (D-Victoria), Nelson moved adoption. Although there were no apparent objections, the record shows that Armbrister voted no.
The Senate acted upon a letter from Attorney General Greg Abbott concurring with an internal memo prepared by attorney Spencer Reid. The memo quotes the Constitution saying that remaining members can compel attendance "under such penalties as each House may provide."
TOPICS: Government; Politics/Elections; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: chickends; redistricting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
To: Dog Gone
We'll see how long they'll hold out in Albuquerque. Most people can't pay a $1,000 a day much less than a $5,000 a day fine. Maybe the DNC can bail then out.
21
posted on
08/12/2003 4:50:33 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: Dog Gone
They're gonna be sleepless huh?? Poor babies!
22
posted on
08/12/2003 4:51:11 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: squidly
So they've got a quorum to sanction their colleagues, but not a quorum to pass redistricting?
Correct, because different rules apply. The state constitution requires a 2/3 quorum to do most business, but less than that 2/3 may adjourn or seek to compel attendance of absent members. Tx. Const. Art. 3, sec. 10 ("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.").
In any event, what no news story I've seen mentions is that
the Chicken Ds clearly are in violation of Rule 5.03 ("No member shall absent himself or herself from the sessions of the Senate without leave unless the member be sick or unable to attend").
Although
Rule 5.04 doesn't provide for any penalty that I can see against absent members -- just for their arrest and haling into the Senate chamber -- it appears that the new fines provision, just passed, addresses that gap.
As to passing new rules, a mere majority of
all members, not a majority of those members who are present, can do so. See
Rule 16.07.
23
posted on
08/12/2003 4:51:42 PM PDT
by
pogo101
To: harpu
Better idea : declare the seats vacant and abandoned.
24
posted on
08/12/2003 4:52:58 PM PDT
by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
To: Bogey78O
Levying fines on attendance does not require a quorum.
This will get interesting as the dems are arguing that no rules were in place for a fine to be levied thus the rules can't be changed without the normal process.... It is going to be an interpretation of the Art in the Constitution as to what it meant.....
25
posted on
08/12/2003 4:54:24 PM PDT
by
deport
To: harpu
*"Jeopardy" theme plays*
Answer is?
Go ahead and challenge this in courts, chicken Ds. SCOTX will uphold the rule. And SCOTUS won't grant cert. Thank you for your generous contributions to the Texas Treasurer's General Fund, to the order of which you will kindly make your checks payable ... lest otherwise we come for your furniture. (That's your home furniture, not your legislative office's.)
26
posted on
08/12/2003 4:55:57 PM PDT
by
pogo101
To: goldstategop
The Chickens have to know that their financial records regarding this stunt are subject to audit. They would be absolutely stupid to assume otherwise.
Being a Texas legislator is a part time job. None of these guys can afford to rack up a $100,000 personal debt, even if the Texas Democrat Party or other surrogates try to fight it in court for them.
27
posted on
08/12/2003 4:56:05 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: harpu; 1riot1ranger; Action-America; Alkhin; Allegra; alnick; American72; antivenom; ...
Cool, A Texas size ZOT!
28
posted on
08/12/2003 4:58:04 PM PDT
by
Flyer
(. . . and I thought I was the only one that reads tag lines)
To: deport
This will get interesting as the dems are arguing that no rules were in place for a fine to be levied thus the rules can't be changed without the normal process.... It is going to be an interpretation of the Art in the Constitution as to what it meant.....I certainly wouldn't want to be the Dem's attorney making that argument. The language is pretty plain, and it was clearly intended to empower the remaining senators to compel attendance as they saw fit.
29
posted on
08/12/2003 4:58:22 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: deport
Excused Senators; Chris Harris (R-Ft. Worth) and John Carona (R-Dallas)
30
posted on
08/12/2003 5:00:29 PM PDT
by
harpu
To: harpu
hmm tack on another zero to those numbers and then we're talking :)
31
posted on
08/12/2003 5:01:58 PM PDT
by
battousai
(This is not the tag line you are looking for... move along ... move along.)
To: Flyer
Gosh, I'd love to see the same Texas philosophy exported to DC. Wouldn't it be great if we could fine the Tom Daschle $5,000 a day for refusing to vote on judicial nominees?
I realize there's no legal mechanism for doing so, but it's the attitude I'm talking about.
32
posted on
08/12/2003 5:01:59 PM PDT
by
Dog Gone
To: harpu
Thanks......
33
posted on
08/12/2003 5:03:43 PM PDT
by
deport
To: Chad Fairbanks
Hey, Chad...you see post #12? Sez right there they can't pick their donors' pockets.
I mentioned on an earlier thread that they needed to insist on not being able to use campaign or office funds. I don't see the office budgets at issue here, so they might just grab from that wallet.
34
posted on
08/12/2003 5:04:01 PM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(© 2003, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
To: Dog Gone
I realize there's no legal mechanism for doing soYeah, it's tough being on the team that plays by the rules.
35
posted on
08/12/2003 5:06:11 PM PDT
by
Flyer
(. . . and I thought I was the only one that reads tag lines)
To: Cyber Liberty
Oh, I know - but these freaks will end up with "leal defense funds" etc... ever seen the Clintons pay for theirs out-of-pocket?
You'll see - they may even try to hide it, but guaranteed - it'll be someone else's money. It always is with 'rats.
36
posted on
08/12/2003 5:06:15 PM PDT
by
Chad Fairbanks
(The wages of sin are death, but by the time FICA and SSI are taken, it's just sorta tired feeling)
To: Dog Gone; deport; harpu
I have an idea. When the Texas 11 start complaining that "they don't have the money", they will ask for contributions from the people. If you have any leftover Clinton $3 or Gore $4 bills, send them some "money".
37
posted on
08/12/2003 5:07:15 PM PDT
by
PetroniDE
(Kitty Is My Master - I Do What She Says)
To: Flyer
Dang, I can't see with these mortal eyes!
To: Dog Gone
I realize there's no legal mechanism for doing so, but it's the attitude I'm talking about. I believe both the House and Senate can set their own rules, and if I'm wrong someone will correct me. So there is a legal mechanism available, *IF* they chose to pass a rule.
39
posted on
08/12/2003 5:08:02 PM PDT
by
Drango
(Democratic fundraising....If PBS won't do it, who will?)
To: Chad Fairbanks
No doubt that in the end it will be someone else's money. Legal Defense Fund will for sure be the mechanism here.
HOWEVER, it takes, uh, some time to get the actual buckeroos into the "fund", and the TX11 might be in less accomodating quarters than a Marriott while the donations slowly roll in....
(especailly all those FReeper 1¢ Visa donations)
40
posted on
08/12/2003 5:09:59 PM PDT
by
Cyber Liberty
(© 2003, Ravin' Lunatic since 4/98)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson