Why can't they introduce a separate bill that's solely focused on going against the executive order, which the Republican majority can then all vote on? I understand latching things onto big bills has become the standard for Congress, but I don't understand why it seems impossible to put forward smaller bills as well with specific and blatant purpose.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
While I'm sure you're right, there's another reason I just found in an article and it explains the current situation. Republicans don't have control of the Senate. I thought they did. So, that answers that. They can't just push ahead without a tiny bit of Democrat support.
In current practice, they don't. Not when a 2/3 majority is needed for anything.
GasBandit
Staff member
They tried. It got filibustered. A lot. (But you didn't hear about that in the news, did ya?) They don't have a supermajority. So they kept putting it in as part of the homeland security budget (because it IS about homeland security, and if the budget reconciliation tactic is good enough for obamacare to pass, it's now good enough for everything), meaning that there was going to be a showdown where if the democrats still filibustered it would mean shutting down DHS. But in this game of chicken, this time, they didn't have the nuts to follow through, and now they're once again revealed for the cowardly career-political slime they are.
I'm guessing they figured that losing funding in DHS and having it shutdown would hurt their anti-immigration rep a lot more that it would hurt the Dems, for whom it shutting down is actually advantageous to the communities they are trying to reach out to. Remember, the Republicans need DHS to be around to stop crossings and catch illegals, but the only thing the Dems need it for is to not look too weak on homeland security (which is how the Republicans should have framed it if they wanted to win).
Instead, the Republican party has continued it's implosion.
Instead, the Republican party has continued it's implosion.
GasBandit
Staff member
>implying the federal government stops crossings WITH funding
GasBandit
Staff member
Future democrat voters.
If only they could get a green card...
GasBandit
Staff member
Never know, the next executive order might be "if you're here, you can vote regardless of citizenship status." Not like the constitution has ever stopped him before.
Here's Obama himself in 2012 saying he doesn't have the authority to do what he just did in 2014.
I'm way more okay with this than I am voter ID laws
This guy makes a (fairly rambling, but it's twitter) case that the GOP actually planned to lose, and that they do this often, which he dubs "Failure Theatre." The basic premise is they make promises that they don't actually want to fulfil, and may even want the opposite, pitch a battle for the audience, and then play the underdog beaten down by the big bad opponents, helping garner them re-election.
https://storify.com/korietraver/fai...er&utm_campaign=&utm_content=storify-pingback
https://storify.com/korietraver/fai...er&utm_campaign=&utm_content=storify-pingback
So the Patriots are actually in charge, just like in Metal Gear Solid 2.
GasBandit
Staff member
ISIS tried to launch its own social media service.
Anonymous did what anonymous does.
http://thedailywh.at/2015/03/social...elafabook-anonymous-reportedly-takes-offline/
The site claims now that it has gone offline to "protect the info and details of its members" and put up this image -
"We do not live to kill and spell blood (sic) as the media protrays us
so... you know...
die in your anguish."
Anonymous did what anonymous does.
http://thedailywh.at/2015/03/social...elafabook-anonymous-reportedly-takes-offline/
The site claims now that it has gone offline to "protect the info and details of its members" and put up this image -
"We do not live to kill and spell blood (sic) as the media protrays us
so... you know...
die in your anguish."
"not sponsored by IS" vs
"IS remains"
"we do not live to spell blood" vs
"we love to die as much as you love to live"
Was this text written by two different people (one of which doesn't speek inglish so gud)?
47 GOP Senators have possibly violated The Logan Act (US Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 45, Subsection 953) by writing an open letter to Iran in order to sabotage ongoing nuclear treaty negotiations:
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
"Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects."
GasBandit
Staff member
So when does Nancy Pelosi report for sentencing?
Just another example of "It's fine when we do it, when you do it, it's treason!"
Huh, I forgot about that.
Interestingly enough, the Bush-era State Department brief on the Logan Act basically agrees with a similar 1975 State briefing that, based on the history of the act and established case law, members of Congress are perfectly enabled to meet with foreign governments as long as they do not intervene in disputes between the US and those governments (i.e. directly contravene or counter offers made by the executive branch) and the reasons why they are going fall within their legislative responsibilities.
I.e., as Speaker of House at the time (3rd in line of succession), Pelosi was perfectly allowed to meet with Assad to learn what his points of view were as they pertained to the United States. It was, IMHO, a stupid, incredibly partisan move that she deserved to be criticized for, but unless there is evidence that she actually interfered with terms of negotiation, she is considered to be in the clear. Repubs at the time liked saying that she had interfered, as the Bush administration had counseled her to not go, but at the same time the Iraq Study group and the State Department actually recommended that legislators do learning trips overseas. Which again, makes it partisan, but not really interfering.
The brief concludes that, as worded, since the basis upon which US negotiations are actually undermined is determined by the State Department and can only be directly prosecuted by the Justice Department, both of those departments need to agree that the Logan Act was violated to realistically prosecute. Ted Kennedy, according to the brief, actually tried to get the Act repealed because the vague wording made it more of a political tool than a real law, but he got talked out of it.
In this particular case, it would be hard to argue that the letter was NOT intended to directly interfere with negotiations, as it pretty much says that in plain English. However, Zarif himself has basically laughed off the letter as nonsensical, so it hasn't really interfered in the terms of the negotiations besides making the US look like a laughingstock. So I suspect that regardless of the any number of petitions, the DoS and DoJ will basically ignore this, because there is no point and actually indicting anyone under the Act (which has never ever happened) would open up a can of worms.
I.e., as Speaker of House at the time (3rd in line of succession), Pelosi was perfectly allowed to meet with Assad to learn what his points of view were as they pertained to the United States. It was, IMHO, a stupid, incredibly partisan move that she deserved to be criticized for, but unless there is evidence that she actually interfered with terms of negotiation, she is considered to be in the clear. Repubs at the time liked saying that she had interfered, as the Bush administration had counseled her to not go, but at the same time the Iraq Study group and the State Department actually recommended that legislators do learning trips overseas. Which again, makes it partisan, but not really interfering.
The brief concludes that, as worded, since the basis upon which US negotiations are actually undermined is determined by the State Department and can only be directly prosecuted by the Justice Department, both of those departments need to agree that the Logan Act was violated to realistically prosecute. Ted Kennedy, according to the brief, actually tried to get the Act repealed because the vague wording made it more of a political tool than a real law, but he got talked out of it.
In this particular case, it would be hard to argue that the letter was NOT intended to directly interfere with negotiations, as it pretty much says that in plain English. However, Zarif himself has basically laughed off the letter as nonsensical, so it hasn't really interfered in the terms of the negotiations besides making the US look like a laughingstock. So I suspect that regardless of the any number of petitions, the DoS and DoJ will basically ignore this, because there is no point and actually indicting anyone under the Act (which has never ever happened) would open up a can of worms.
There's a bit of a difference in motive and direct intent there, Gas. Since Pelosi did not attempt to set any kind of policy regarding Syria, or even enter into any kind of negotiations where she would have been representing the United States, she doesn't violate the Logan Act. Since the 47 Senators in this case are most explicitly trying to undermine an ongoing negotiation towards an international agreement with Iran, the permanent members of the UN Security Council, and Germany, that's a whole other situation.
I don't expect them to be prosecuted for it but the two situations are far from similar.
I don't expect them to be prosecuted for it but the two situations are far from similar.
GasBandit
Staff member
I'm not sure I believe that. She sure didn't go there to meet him to try to BOLSTER the chief executive's policy of isolation. But, as we all say, it will probably end up being moot in any case.
Since Republican Congressmen Robert Aderholt, Joe Pitts, and Frank Wolf also traveled to Syria separately and met with Assad a few days prior to Pelosi, it's somewhat disingenuous to make it sound like she was acting alone.
GasBandit
Staff member
Chain 'em all together and make em break rocks by the side of the road, and I'll be a happy libertarian.
Dave
Staff member
All politicians should have to do community service and a mandatory 2-4 years in the military. You want the country to go to war, huh? Well, then, you should know what it's like. I think that would cut down on all the bullshit "hawkiness" we've got right now.
Or make them have to attend every funeral in their districts of military members. Anything to make them think of the men & women of the armed forces as people instead of assets to be thrown around at every little problem.
Or make them have to attend every funeral in their districts of military members. Anything to make them think of the men & women of the armed forces as people instead of assets to be thrown around at every little problem.
GasBandit
Staff member
Maaan, I've been saying that since I registered this username! One of the first threads I ever participated in was about this topic, and I espoused a mandatory tour of duty being prerequisite to holding office (or voting).
People just accuse me of reading too much Heinlein, though, half the time when I say it
So you're saying it's untrue?People just accuse me of reading too much Heinlein, though, half the time when I say it
GasBandit
Staff member
Let's just say I was more of a Heinlein fan before I started reading his later stuff.So you're saying it's untrue?
Moon is a harsh mistress = awesome.
Starship troopers = pretty good.
Stranger in a strange land = ok, if a little overrated.
Time Enough for Love = Eerrhh it wasn't bad until the last bit where he's impregnating teenage clones of himself?
Friday = couldn't get past the first bit where the woman fucks her rapists into submission/death.
The Cat who Walks Through Walls = wtf is this shit
GasBandit
Staff member
Those were just the ones that sprang right to mind, I've read (or tried to read) a few more of his books, to varying degrees of success, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head which ones they were.What?!? No comment for Number of the Beast?