Massachusetts Constitutional Convention - Live Thread

House TV ^

[pickledelf]

Live streaming video of the Massachusetts ConCon:
http://housetv.hou.state.ma.us/

[sionnsar]

Welcome to Free Republic.

[Red Badger]

Shouldn't that be ConCon Con?........

[Diogenesis]

Is the New York Times (ultimate controller of Mass Supreme Court)
actually going to let the Mass. Sheeple see what representative democracy
could have been before the Bulgers, the Boston Globe and the NYTimes took over?

[Red Badger]

It's like a 3 card Monty game.....Nobody's watching, and if they are they are getting screwed and don't realize it.........

[rhombus]

Nobody's watching, and if they are they are getting screwed and don't realize it.........

People in Mass just don't care. For them it's about being "nice" to gay people, not that the legislature should obey the law.

[Red Badger]

Keep your eye on the Queen, just follow the Queen, It's easy.....

[rhombus]

Well my connection pooped out. Maybe Big Brother decided there was something I shouldn't see. I don't know what, everyone was voting, "no".

[popdonnelly]

Have they declared Massachusetts a nuclear-free zone yet? How about calling for President Bush's impeachment? Or ethical slaughter of chickens?

[pickledelf]

Looks like the stream isn't holding up. This is the only blog I know that is live-blogging with reporters on the scene. http://www.baywindows.com/ME2/Audiences/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&AudID=0813BC739F2044E5A03DCF2DE3FDF7C9&tier=4&id=8A0D3DE5CF574F66A46191FF5C36CB9E

[SWAMPSNIPER]

I don't reckon there is any group of people in the world, better able to screw up a constitution, than the folks in Massachusetts!

[rhombus]

OK, the stream is dead and the baywindows com link you provided is now also dead. Anyone know what happened?

[rhombus]

2:36 p.m. -- It's unclear what happened to the motion to reconsider. A roll call vote is now being taken on a motion to recess the ConCon for a hour.


2:26 p.m. The amendment passes with 54 yeas. They are still compiling the nays. State Rep. Byron Rushing is now offering a motion to reconsider. If this motion passes and the ConCon adjourns, the amendment will not take effect.

[IpaqMan]

Yay!!! According to Boston.com, the legislature voted 132-61 to defeat the measure. However, since only 50 are needed to approve, the measure has passed onto the next session for approval.

[rhombus]

From the Bay Windows site it appears a vote to reconsider was stopped and now they are voting to recess (to work backroom deals?)?

[pickledelf]

Seems like no one really knows what happened. Here is another blog commenting on stuff.
http://bluemassgroup.com/frontPage.do

[gidget7]

WHAT?? What the heck is a motion to reconsider??

[raccoonradio]

yes, the link posted below was saying that the vote was to recess for an hour. I tried to hear what was being said on
the streamcast and did hear the bit about "shall we recess
for an hour?" and the rollcall, but it was so plagued
with audio drops and video freezes that I gave up.

[raccoonradio]

AP:
BOSTON - Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, voted Tuesday to allow a proposed constitutional amendment to move forward that would effectively ban it.

The amendment's backers had collected 170,000 signatures to get a question on the 2008 ballot asking voters to declare marriage in Massachusetts to be between a man and a woman, but they still needed the Legislature's approval in two consecutive sessions.

On Tuesday, 61 lawmakers backed moving the measure forward, compared to 132 opposed. The amendment need 50 votes of support to advance.

[gidget7]

Just read this on bluemass

Just in from the Governor-elect. The full statement is after the flip. His statement on the adjourn vs. vote question:

I favor ending this petition initiative promptly. If adjournment can accomplish that, so be it. If the Constitutional Convention chooses to vote on the merits, I want to be utterly clear that I believe a vote to advance this question to the 2008 ballot is irresponsible and wrong. Given the significant challenges we face on so many other fronts, I would be deeply disappointed in such a vote. It would do nothing more than condemn us all to more years of debate and expense on a matter that is legally and practically settled.


Grrrrrrr