Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Need to remove "emergency legislation" provisions from the law?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Need to remove "emergency legislation" provisions from the law?

    Most states have some provisions to allow for an immediate vote on a bill w/o going through committees, hearings etc. And some procedures give great deference to those who can certify such speedy processes.

    I think its time to remove these provisions under the law and they have been abused time and time again.

    So what if it requires a special session or something that delays a law for a couple of days or weeks ... I say "suck it up" legislators and governors .. you brought this on yourselves ...

  2. #2
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    for the sake of a debate, and because I can't think of any specific examples that would support e-cert laws, can someone please state a specific hypothetical example for when such an emergency process IS justifiable?
    Last edited by motoxmann; 03-06-2013 at 11:16 PM.
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    for the sake of a debate, and because I can't think of any specific examples that would support e-cert laws, can someone please state a specific hypothetical example for when such an emergency process IS justifiable?
    Wait a minute. What does emergency process have to do with anything? So what if a bill is not heard in a committee? So what if there is no public hearing before a subcommittee? Its not like committees and processes are necessary. Most of that is legislative mechanics, anyway.

    The core process is pretty simple. The speaker decides which bills come to a debate or vote when. They get debated or voted on. End of discussion.

    Read up on the constitutional convention. Very few committees. There was a commitee of style or detail that sorted through the exact language, then it was put back to the full convention for debate or vote. When the convention wanted to debate something, but didn't want to be held to their remarks (so they could change their mind if further debate or reflection caused them to change their mind), the whole convention switched over to a Committee of the Whole. Then, when a vote was to be taken, everybody switched back to the the convention. Very streamlined. No dilly-dallying around with subcommittees, committees, etc.

    Legislators can't abuse processes that aren't really supposed to be there or necessary. Just tell 'em to debate on the open floor, vote on the open floor, and live with the consequences come election time. Besides, from what I can tell, griping about process-abuse seems to always come down to one party howling the other party is playing some parliamentary trick effectively and winning at it. Come the next time that out-manuvered party holds power, they just play the same tricks. That they have created a field upon which to manuver is the problem, not that one or the other is manuvering.
    Last edited by Citizen; 03-06-2013 at 11:31 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Wait a minute. What does emergency process have to do with anything? So what if a bill is not heard in a committee? So what if there is no public hearing before a subcommittee? Its not like committees and processes are necessary. Most of that is legislative mechanics, anyway.
    excellent question .. the answer is: because courts can go back and consider committee testimony and statements made by legislators when examining the law in their courtroom for a myriad of reasons... just doing what judges do...

    Committee hearings are very important as they hammer out the legislatures intent on what the law actually means...

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Just tell 'em to debate on the open floor,
    And where is your voice? Its heard in committee ... when you give your statement

  6. #6
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Wait a minute. What does emergency process have to do with anything?
    it has everything to do with everything. it's how Cuomo excused himself from following NY law to secretly pass bills into law behind closed doors overnight. and it's how CT legislators have attempted to do a few things as well. all illegally I might add.

    The open court case about NY's new gun laws pertain specifically to this.

    several states have very descriptive and strict processes to follow for legislative process. exemptions with other criteria exist for "emergency situations".

    but still, noone answered my question above in the 2nd post. can someone please answer that one for me?
    “Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry.” ~Thomas Jefferson
    www.CTCarry.com

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    it has everything to do with everything. it's how Cuomo excused himself from following NY law to secretly pass bills into law behind closed doors overnight. and it's how CT legislators have attempted to do a few things as well. all illegally I might add.

    The open court case about NY's new gun laws pertain specifically to this.

    several states have very descriptive and strict processes to follow for legislative process. exemptions with other criteria exist for "emergency situations".

    but still, noone answered my question above in the 2nd post. can someone please answer that one for me?
    I understand. Just realize that government would have passed those laws no matter what barriers had been in the way. Just like criminals will get guns no matter what laws are passed against it. They wanted those laws passed for their own political gain; nothing would have stopped them short of a constitutional provision requiring 77% vote taken between 10am and 4pm.

    Arguing against misuse of procedure the legislature itself set up to allow political manuvering (read that to mean to out-manuver the other party or prevent the other party out-manuvering them) is kinda like complaining the chief executive didn't follow the rules he himself set up for town hall meetings.

    Don't get sucked into it, guys. If you want to argue against these actions, use them to highlight how the whole process is bad--designed to protect politicians or enhance the majority party power.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    And where is your voice? Its heard in committee ... when you give your statement
    Yeah, yeah, yeah (bored). An old railroad man with two missing fingers can still count on one hand the number of times those statements actually changed something. Those politicians have already figured out how they're going to vote before the statements are made. Trust me. Do you really think they haven't already talked to the lobbyists and special interests before the hearing? Do you really think they wait until the hearing to receive the position of the special interest whose support they want?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Yeah, yeah, yeah (bored). An old railroad man with two missing fingers can still count on one hand the number of times those statements actually changed something. Those politicians have already figured out how they're going to vote before the statements are made. Trust me. Do you really think they haven't already talked to the lobbyists and special interests before the hearing? Do you really think they wait until the hearing to receive the position of the special interest whose support they want?
    Well, the lobbyists don't talk to judges asking them to allow a certain bill to just slide on by ...

    And many people call legislators about bills, both pro and con. Even if you think it makes no difference in the legislature it does make a difference in court.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    for the sake of a debate, and because I can't think of any specific examples that would support e-cert laws, can someone please state a specific hypothetical example for when such an emergency process IS justifiable?
    When the lawmakers fled the state to prevent the legislative branch from being able to do anything. It would be an emergency in order to get the government legally working again and any new laws would need to be specifically tailored to fixing the issue so that the government could run. Or some type of catastrophic disaster that isn't already regulated (think like if nuclear material, or even mercury, wasn't regulated, was widespread, and the disasterous results were suddenly found out, or if something "legally" prevented the state from administering proper aid after an event like Katrina). Or if something like the "bath salts" that cause people to flip out and eat others' faces were to explode as an issue (though this one has a different problem in regards to my disagreement with the "war on drugs"). Or a sudden insurrection and the government "needing" to change some law to be able to target the terrorists/insurectionists/freedom fighters legally (not that I think our current government would care).

    Overall it is pretty hard to come up with a hypothetical situation, but I can see how there's a "potential" need for it. Though given the over-regulation of our country (so an issue that would otherwise be an emergency is likely covered by "some" other law) and the government's propensity for abusing things, I find it hard to keep such "emergency" rules around.
    Last edited by Aknazer; 03-07-2013 at 02:53 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •