Indiana Democrat Legislators Hide Out

[IncendiaryGunner]

But can the Senate send the doorman? Or the capital police?
http://www.in.gov/legislative/session/senate1.pdf



From the senate rules that I quoted above it seems if they are short of a quorum they can still pass a motion to censure. And compel the senators to show up.

Mitch Daniels could send state police to round them up in the state, but those outside of the state are not in the jurisdiction of state police. Since they would not have left to a Republican state, nobody is going to be bringing them back.

I couldn't find the rules on how a censure is done anywhere (for the state of Indiana). To be honest, I am not sure if it ever HAS been done, or if rules even exist for the censure...

In the end, republicans do not want to censure anyway. They want the vote to be held up to use it for political posturing.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I couldn't find the rules on how a censure is done anywhere (for the state of Indiana). To be honest, I am not sure if it ever HAS been done, or if rules even exist for the censure...

In the end, republicans do not want to censure anyway. They want the vote to be held up to use it for political posturing.

The only place the word censure is mentioned in the senate rules or the joint rules is what I quoted. It seems to be handled the same way as any motion but without requiring a quorum.

And I agree that they don't want to censure. Partly because of the reason you mentioned and also because if they pull the same trick they don't want it done to them.

 

[Compatriot G]

While I don't like this tactic, it has been used by Republicans in the not-so-distant past.


Dems Block Changes To Immigrant Bill; Republicans Walk - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

 

[Denny347]

While I don't like this tactic, it has been used by Republicans in the not-so-distant past.


Dems Block Changes To Immigrant Bill; Republicans Walk - Indiana News Story - WRTV Indianapolis

Hmmm, where was the outrage then?

 

[Bill of Rights]

It's equally dirty no matter who's doing it. The difference is that when the more conservative and/or more libertarian politicians do it, it is typically (not always, but typically) an effort to block an infringement of the rights of the citizens.
We do not have a right to a job nor a right to collective bargaining. We have a right to have a voice in our governance. If a particular group's voice is smaller, perhaps they should concentrate more on improving their political positions, in keeping with their oaths to uphold the Constitutions.

I will be most displeased if these usurpers prevent our good gun bills from coming to a vote.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[jeremy]

Hmmm, where was the outrage then?

I was pissed then also Denny...

I personally think the Fine should be twice what their Daily Pay rate is...

 

[ATOMonkey]

I think it's one thing to walk out of a session for a while. It's another to go camp out in an adjacent state.

 

[jedi]

What if the rolls were reversed? What if it was Dems were in majority and the only way for Republicans to kill a bill (ex: something dear to us all...an anti-gun law, or similar) was to walk out as the Dems did now? Would we still be having the uproar. Some yes, but I bet many more would say "Good for them." The bellyaching is party specific I am afraid.

You are correct we would not be in an uproar but saying "good for them".

On a positive note, at least we don't have to see Pat Bauer's fat, old, ugly, freak-pseudo-haired ass on TV for the time being.

Problem is we have several good gun bills that have cleared the IN SENATE and now may die in the IN HOUSE becuase of this! It's taken a lot time to get these good gun bills thru the IN SENATE.

Mitch Daniels could send state police to round them up in the state, but those outside of the state are not in the jurisdiction of state police. Since they would not have left to a Republican state, nobody is going to be bringing them back.

What about "avg. common-man joe"? Would it be kidnapping to go get them from IL and drop them off at the state house?

 

[fergie22]

this is so sad the people we elect to make the hard decisions flee the state with their dresses over their heads when things don`t go easy for them?
cowboy up and do your damn job earn your keep or get out

 

[Ricnzak]

It is just really sad to see what our political system has developed into.

 

[dross]

It's equally dirty no matter who's doing it. The difference is that when the more conservative and/or more libertarian politicians do it, it is typically (not always, but typically) an effort to block an infringement of the rights of the citizens.
We do not have a right to a job nor a right to collective bargaining. We have a right to have a voice in our governance. If a particular group's voice is smaller, perhaps they should concentrate more on improving their political positions, in keeping with their oaths to uphold the Constitutions.

I will be most displeased if these usurpers prevent our good gun bills from coming to a vote.



Blessings,
Bill

Bill brings up a very good point. Let's say the Dems had an overwhelming majority and they were about to pass a set of California-like gun laws. Would you guys be upset if some of the pro-rights legislators used this tactic to buy time?

 

[Bull]

From the Indy Star

Q: How often has this happened?

A: A floor boycott is rare but not an unheard-of tactic in Indiana; sometimes, the House majority has responded by issuing fines based on the per-diem rate. Among Indiana House walkouts was a 2005 blow-up that prompted Daniels, a Republican, to say Democrats had "car-bombed" parts of his agenda. About 130 bills died because of missed procedural deadlines during the one-day boycott. Democrats launched a longer boycott in 1995. Republican minorities have walked out, too, in 2001, 1991 and 1975.
Compiled by Jon Murray

 

[JeremySS]

What bothers me about what the Dems are doing though is this take my ball and go home mentality. Regardless if they think they are right there is a process for lawmaking regardless of which side of the aisle one comes from. By shutting it all down just because they don't like the bill sets a dangerous precedent and in effect short circuits the representative democratic process that we are all supposed to be a part of. I also wonder how the media and others would be treating this if roles were reversed and Republicans were walking out on a bill that was pushing a liberal agenda item such as abortion, health care, or even gay marriage?

In the end I feel like what the Dems are doing is desperate and childish. So long as it is not unconstitutional the vote should go through and if Dems/People do not like the results, then when elections come around again, vote people in who will change it.

 

[CVMA544]

HEY thats a neat idea, think maybe we could form our sysytem to reflect that?

Too bad the politicians don't understand that huh?

 

[E5RANGER375]

what does it matter if the dems show up or not. they do the same amount of work for the people either there or gone. which is absolutely ZERO. the democratic representation here in indiana sucks and always has as long as I can remember. they have always used shenanigans to get out of debating or working. I think when pat baur eventually kicks the bucket then maybe they will get back to work. he is a cancer.

 

[right winger]

If I didn't like doing the dirty part of my job, and decided to walk out I would be released from my duties permanantly. Too bad the same thing won't happen to these individuals. You were elected into office to do a job, like it or not, thats the job they have in front of them. Sometimes making hard decisions sucks, but that doesn't (shouldn't) make hiding allowable/acceptable. If they're not willing to voice their opinion of tough decisions, find someone else who is. I'd have their stuff packed up for them when they return.

 

[JeremySS]

HEY thats a neat idea, think maybe we could form our sysytem to reflect that?

Too bad the politicians don't understand that huh?

Seems like a sound idea, maybe some one should write it down...oh, wait a minute, someone beat me too it a couple hundred years ago.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill brings up a very good point. Let's say the Dems had an overwhelming majority and they were about to pass a set of California-like gun laws. Would you guys be upset if some of the pro-rights legislators used this tactic to buy time?

Thanks for the props, dross, but let's give credit where credit is due: that was Denny347's point, not mine. Mine was that the people have a right to be represented and that the legislators do not have a right (nor a legitimate power) to refuse to be that representation. (I don't know if the terminology is accurate, but it's the difference between a de jure power and a de facto power: They have the capability to fail to represent us, but not the authority to do so.)

As I see it, I would still consider it wrong/dirty of pro-rights legislators to pursue this tactic, however I would be more understanding of it if they were doing it to avoid a measure that violates either God-given rights or the Constitution (state or fed) being passed by the legislature.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

Thanks for the props, dross, but let's give credit where credit is due: that was Denny347's point, not mine. Mine was that the people have a right to be represented and that the legislators do not have a right (nor a legitimate power) to refuse to be that representation. (I don't know if the terminology is accurate, but it's the difference between a de jure power and a de facto power: They have the capability to fail to represent us, but not the authority to do so.)

As I see it, I would still consider it wrong/dirty of pro-rights legislators to pursue this tactic, however I would be more understanding of it if they were doing it to avoid a measure that violates either God-given rights or the Constitution (state or fed) being passed by the legislature.



Blessings,
Bill

I don't particularly like the tactic, either. One of my little missions of communication on this forum, however, is try to get people to see that politics isn't ideology. Ideology can be pure, but no pure ideology has ever been put into practice. The simple reason for that is that everyone does't share the same ideology. This is the entire purpose of representative government. Other people vote who disagree with us vote for politicians who represent THEIR view. These people don't care if their reps use shady tactics to advance their cause. So the legislators who are hiding are actually representing the people who put them in office. They are using a loophole in the rules to represent their folks.

It's a weakness in the rules that's the problem, not the politicians who will ALWAYS do what gets them the votes.

To put it another way, don't hate the playa' hate the game.

 

[CVMA544]

I don't particularly like the tactic, either. One of my little missions of communication on this forum, however, is try to get people to see that politics isn't ideology. Ideology can be pure, but no pure ideology has ever been put into practice. The simple reason for that is that everyone does't share the same ideology. This is the entire purpose of representative government. Other people vote who disagree with us vote for politicians who represent THEIR view. These people don't care if their reps use shady tactics to advance their cause. So the legislators who are hiding are actually representing the people who put them in office. They are using a loophole in the rules to represent their folks.

It's a weakness in the rules that's the problem, not the politicians who will ALWAYS do what gets them the votes.

To put it another way, don't hate the playa' hate the game.

Excellent, and spot on.