Posted on 03/18/2011 8:47:58 AM PDT by MNlurker
Just reported on Sykes radio show.
Just freaking great...
The court for the trial of impeachments shall be composed of the senate. The assembly shall have the power of impeaching all civil officers of this state for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors; but a majority of all the members elected shall concur in an impeachment. On the trial of an impeachment against the governor, the lieutenant governor shall not act as a member of the court. No judicial officer shall exercise his office, after he shall have been impeached, until his acquittal. Before the trial of an impeachment the members of the court shall take an oath or affirmation truly and impartially to try the impeachment according to evidence; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two−thirds of the members present. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, or removal from office and disqualification to hold any office of honor, profit or trust under the state; but the party impeached shall be liable to indictment, trial and punishment according to law. [1]
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Wisconsin_Constitution%2C_Article_VII
IMPEACH THE JUDGE! Even if the Rats do not show up, the Rs can still impeach this corrupt judge. It only takes a majority of Senators present! If the Rats do show up, bring Walker's original bill to the floor for a vote!
Welcome to the revolution
I’d vote for you in a heartbeat.
And only stop supporting you if you didn’t do those things above!
Thanks!
It’d be hard not using the “f-word” in front of the legislature however.
I don’t swear all that much, but something about liberals sets me off and I start sounding like Sam Kinison.
This has nothing to do with people being excluded from the room, and everything to do with notice. The open meetings law requires 24 hours notice in most cases, with an exception for situations where legislative rules require less notice. The Republicans claim that no notice was required, under a Senate rule governing special sessions. The Democrats (including the plaintiff in this case) claim that, because the meeting was a joint committee conference, the Senate rule does not apply, so the open meetings law controls.
Frankly, as I said the day this was passed, I think the Republicans made a mistake by not waiting 24 hours. Even if they thought (and think) they have a good argument as to why the open meetings law does not apply, they had to know that this sort of lawsuit was coming. For the “cost” of 24 hours notice at the time, they could have prevented even the possibility of this law being struck down. I don’t see (and didn’t see then) the benefit of inviting such a challenge.
I also think this is (or ought to be) meaningless. As several have noted, the Democrats are back, so there’s nothing stopping the Republicans from simply passing a new budget bill that includes the provisions at issue here.
I can't imagine that the Senate committee which passed this law wouldn't have researched the legality of what they did before taking the vote.
Those who wrote & passed the law can impeach them all.
“So, do you also consider the colonists who fought in the revolutionary war, vigilantes?”
You, outside the law, fighting against Union Thugs who are also outside the law....does not equate to the American Revolution.
Keep your “Colt” in its holster...you are not the law. Those “thugs” will be dealt with eventually.
Never said I was law, however you seemed to lump everyone who carries a gun as a vigilante.
And, last I looked, it wasn't union thugs who issued the injunction...it was a judge...... ie the govt.
“Do you have an example of “both sides” doing this?”
What I was trying to make the poster understand was that his reference to Sam Colt (meaning firearms) was not a lawful/correct answer. The Union Thugs he proposes to put down are armed as well. Let THEM be the bad guys. If citizens use “arms” against these types, it will reflect badly on both sides...maybe more on the non-union types because the press is left leaning.
IF and when the Governor of WI calls out the militia, then Sam Colt may be used....until then it is vigilantism.
It seems to me like both sides have viable arguments. On the Republican side, they have the (nonpartisan) Clerk of the Senate saying that what they did was OK. On the other hand, it's not entirely clear that Senate rules govern meetings that are comprised of members of the Senate and the Assembly. I'm not a Wisconsin constitutional lawyer, but this case does not seem to be as cut-and-dry as some people think it is (again, it ought to be moot, since the Republicans should be able to turn around and pass this law again, now that the Dems are back).
>Marbury v. Madison
LOL! Decided by...whom? You mean a judge decided that a judge has the last word??
I am shocked!
Enough of you misrepresentation...SHOW ME where I mentioned ANYTHING about union thugs, or "putting them down."
Put up or shut up.
“And, last I looked, it wasn’t union thugs who issued the injunction...it was a judge...... ie the govt.”
Are you proposing overthrowing the government now? Why did you even mention firearms?
BTW - Been a donating member of the NRA for at least 20 years. Plus, I own numerous firearms, and have been a licensed carrier. However, I don’t appeal to “Sam Colt” as a solution to a tax or other problem with mixed up laws, courts, or unions. It is self defeating.
Now - It is obvious I must have misunderstood what you meant by referencing “Sam Colt.”
Look at post 6, and my comment to THAT post & THAT POST ONLY in # 8. Then look at your completely asinine comments.
I have absolutely NO idea where you got all that crap from my little 3 word post. I really don't.
Heard Judge Napolitano say it would be unusual for a judge to overturn the state legislature...
Perhaps I am responding with info from inaccurate news reports, but that’s the basis for my reply. Do I understand correctly that penalties for violating the open meeting law require that the person KNOWINGLY make the violation? If they were relying on the legal opinion of experts, they certainly didn’t knowingly violate the law.
If I posted inaccurate info to the thread, I apologize.
Again, it doesn’t matter....the Repulicans would just revote the same bill with the proper notice period if that’s what the court requires. They have all the votes. It cannot be stopped. Court or no court.
I think the Great One (Mark Levin - who should be President!) will have an informative answer to these questions.
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.