Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has anyone asked Obama to explain this?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:41 AM
Original message
Has anyone asked Obama to explain this?
Why Obama, the Constitutional lawyer and lecturer did nothing while the Bush Administration in essence shredded parts of the Constitution? Why didn't the junior Senator take a stand on the habeus corpus issue? Why didn't he take a huge stand on the Patriot Act? Why didn't he use his expertise to help the Democratic party fight the Republicans on these issues? Am I missing something here or is this another way of essentially voting present?

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:45 AM
Response to Original message
1. That's a good question..I'd like to see a real discussion of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Thanks Maddy...me too.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
35. See my response below.
Even better than seeing a discussion, you could always just do a little research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:46 AM
Response to Original message
2. It's all over, Barack has won ... go home and cry
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Yeah right...keep up that illusion.
Did Obama miraculously hit the 2025 delegates last night and I missed it? NOT!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
39. He hasn't won the GE
Does THAT make YOU cry?
Or is it all getting the nomination for you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #2
45. Obama has been short on substance. You seem to be just like your leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #2
49. We'd like your answer to the question raised...before we go home...
...and cheer, actually.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lannigan Donating Member (141 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
50. Wow, really contributing to the dialogue - NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 03:58 AM
Response to Original message
5. What would you have had him do?
Snatch the habeas restoration act from Senators Specter and Leahy? He's spoken out about the issue repeatedly. He voted for the legislation. He's also spoken out about his position on the Patriot Act. What has Senator Clinton done? She's one of the most high profile dems in the country, and was when most people didn't know who Obama is. She's the wife a former President. She has huge influence? Why did she do nothing.

Ok, just playing your silly game. I'll help you. Both Senators Obama and Clinton signed on as co-sponsors of the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007. Senator Obama favored Senator Feingold's amendments to the Patriot Act that were not allowed to come to the floor under the Republican Leadership. Honestly, I don't think either Clinton or Obama have taken strong positions of leadership on the Patriot Act, and I wish both would have, but to single out Obama in the face of Clinton's lack of leadership on these issues, is mildly amusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
guyanakoolaid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Very well put - Pretty much the only response necessary to the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. As always, without fail, you are wrong. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Playing a game?
How many times has Clinton been singled out over an issue? After so many times of Clinton being singled out for votes on issues...like Obama continuing to fund the war but, since he says he is against it, it is OK? Obama is the Constitutional Lawyer, surely his expertise and experience could have led a fight by the Dems on these issues.

What is the problem whenever a question is asked about Obama, that an answer cannot be provided with out juxtaposing Obama with Hillary? Isn't Obama his own person? Can't someone answer a question about him that does not involve 'but Hillary' in the answer? Does Obama need Hillary to quantify his very existence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
29. Agreed!
!!!!! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
33. How many times has Obama been singled out over an issue?
Look, I'm in the minority here. I understand why Congress critters have voted to fund the war. Obama being a constitutional lawyer is not as germane to your questions as is the fact that jr senators rarely lead big issue fights like this. And that even includes Hillary who's in a unique position in the Senate. It's just not how that body works.

And sorry, context is important. That's why Hillary does belong in an answer to your question.

But yeah, your OP is the epitome of mindless gotcha crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roseBudd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
58. Maybe you should call him up and ask him, since you need to know so bad
I heard one Obama vote is actually worth 60 which makes him a veto proof majority of one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Taxmyth Donating Member (990 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:10 AM
Response to Original message
9. What you are seeing
is a very inexperienced Senator from Illinois.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I figured he was too busy 'positioning' himself to make waves like that.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:18 AM
Response to Original message
11. Have you ever researched anything about Obama?
And what did Hillary "do". She's been in Washington longest, so I'm sure you have a list of all of her accomplishments in those same areas you question Obama on. Right? And please don't respond, this thread is about Obama....cause this thread is about the election.
---------------------
Obama Says Gitmo Facility Should Close

The Democratic presidential hopeful pledged to work side-by-side with the rest of the world on issues like nuclear proliferation, poverty, economic development in Latin America and the violence in Darfur.

"While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."

Habeas corpus is a tenet of the Constitution that protects people from unlawful imprisonment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401046.html

---------------
Human Rights Should Be Bigger than Politics
Senator Barack Obama delivered this speech on the floor of the US Senate, in reaction to Senate passage of S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved US torture of detainees and strips Constitutional rights away from detainees.
Senator Obama decries the placement of politics over human rights, and condemns S. 3930. He states, "This is not how a serious Administration would approach the problem of terrorism."
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaTorture.htm

excerpts from Obama's statement...

In the five years that the President's system of military tribunals has existed, not one terrorist has been tried. Not one has been convicted. And in the end, the Supreme Court of the United found the whole thing unconstitutional, which is why we're here today.

We could have fixed all of this in a way that allows us to detain and interrogate and try suspected terrorists while still protecting the accidentally accused from spending their lives locked away in Guantanamo Bay. Easily. This was not an either-or question.

Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus - the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance - one single chance - to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/ObamaTorture.htm


http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9845595-7.html
For one thing, under an Obama presidency, Americans will be able to leave behind the era of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and "wiretaps without warrants," he said. (He was referring to the lingering legal fallout over reports that the National Security Agency scooped up Americans' phone and Internet activities without court orders, ostensibly to monitor terrorist plots, in the years after the September 11 attacks.)

It's hardly a new stance for Obama, who has made similar statements in previous campaign speeches, but mention of the issue in a stump speech, alongside more frequently discussed topics like Iraq and education, may give some clue to his priorities.

In our own Technology Voters' Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: "No."

Ethics and Lobbying Reform

Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government. During his first year as an Illinois State Senator, he helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in 25 years. As a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Senator Obama is one of the authors of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (S. 2180). The bill would lengthen the cooling off period to two years for lawmakers and staff who seek to become lobbyists, and it would require immediate disclosure as soon as any job negotiations begin.

The bill would open conference committee meetings to the public and require that all bills be posted on the Internet for 24 hours before they can be voted on by the Senate. Finally, the bill would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel and strengthen the Senate office that monitors lobbyist disclosure forms.


In addition, Senator Obama has sponsored three other ethics-related bills:

The Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259) The bill would create an outside ethics commission to receive complaints from the public on alleged ethics violations by members of Congress, staff, and lobbyists. The commission would have the authority to investigate complaints and present public findings of fact about possible violations to the House and Senate Ethics Committee and Justice Department. By taking the initial fact finding out of the hands of members of Congress, who are often reluctant to investigate their colleagues, the bill ensures prompt and fair disposition of public complaints.

To avoid manipulation of the commission for political purposes, any person filing a complaint that they knew to be false would be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. No complaints could be filed against a member of Congress for 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

The bill has been widely endorsed by reform groups. According to Common Cause, "this legislation would do more to reform ethics and lobbying than any other piece of legislation introduced thus far because it goes to the heart of the problem: enforcement."

Public Citizen praised Senator Obama "for having the courage to challenge the business-as-usual environment on Capitol Hill and introduce far-reaching legislation." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated: "This is the first bill that deals seriously with the lack of oversight and enforcement in the existing congressional ethics process. . . . This bill will help restore Americans' confidence in the integrity of Congress.

The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S. 2261)
The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate.
Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.

The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act) (S. 2179)

The bill aims to improve public access to information about all legislation, including conference reports and appropriations legislation, in particular after hurried, end-of-session negotiations. Conference committee meetings and deliberations would have to be open to the public or televised, and conference reports would have to identify changes made to the bill from the House and Senate versions. Finally, no bill could be considered by the full Senate unless the measure has been made available to all Senators and the general public on the Internet for at least 72 hours.


Destroying Surplus and Unguarded Conventional Weapons

After visiting weapons stockpiles in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, Senators Lugar and Obama introduced S. 2566, which would expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons.

Sex Offenders



Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law (S. 792) which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate on July 28, 2005.

He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12, and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry.
The bill will also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.


Violence Against Women Act

Senator Obama cosponsored extension of Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197), which passed the Senate on October 4, 2005, and was signed into law. The Act provides increased funds to law enforcement to combat violence against women. It also establishes a sexual assault services program and provides grants for education programs to prevent domestic violence and encourage reporting of abuses.

The Senate Immigration Bill

Senator Obama played a key role in the crafting of the immigration reform bill that the Senate passed in May 2006.
The bill, which President Bush supports, would provide more funds and technology for border security and prevent employers from skirting our laws by hiring illegal immigrants. The bill also would provide immigrants who are now contributing and responsible members of society an opportunity to remain in the country and earn citizenship. But not all illegal immigrants would be guaranteed the right to remain in the U.S. under this proposal; they would first have to pay a substantial fine and back taxes, learn English, satisfy a work requirement, and pass a criminal background check.

Senator Obama offered three amendments that were included in the Senate bill. The first amendment strengthens the requirement that a job be offered at a prevailing wage to American workers before it is offered to a guestworker. The second amendment makes it simple, but mandatory, for employers to verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States. And the third amendment authorizes $3 million a year for the FBI to improve the speed and accuracy of the background checks required for immigrants seeking to become citizens.



Drinking Water Security

Senator Obama drafted an amendment, which was included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed the EPW Committee on July 20, 2005.
The Obama amendment would provide $37.5 million over the next five years to protect the country's drinking water from a terrorist attack. It also instructs Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. I have read plenty, heard plenty and seen plenty about Obama.
The fact that you think anyone who questions Obama must not know a thing about him is a tad on the condescending side. It is a legitimate question. Constitutional law is his field of expertise, I want to know how a Constitutional Lawyer stand by with no filibusters while the Constitution is shredded. Hell, even McCain has been known to filibuster when it was an issue he firmly believed in. I just want to know why Obama was not more vocal about the shredding of the Constitution, the issue with habeus corpus and why he did not fight the Patriot Act tooth and nail. That is what I asked, not all the things you posted. Is that such a terrible thing to ask? Is it a sin to question Obama now? That is the impression I get. Anyone who dares question Obama here suffers an immediate pile-on and often times their post will be ignored, and the pile-on flames on until the whole shebang is deleted. Quelling dissent is never pretty no matter how you do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Once you drive the bus into the ditch
there are only so many ways to get it out. He can't single-handedly save the Senate when you have Bush-enablers like McCain and Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Speaking of buses in ditches...
Isn't that where Obama's Hope bus ended up when he threw Wright under it?

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. That's where Hillary is headed
now that she's has to grovel and beg the supers to gift her the nomination. Does she still think she's ahead in the total votes cast? Her 5th grade math teacher must be rolling over in his grave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #24
47. math will count also in Denver when Ballots get cast over and over --its the Process stupid!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #13
25. I've read your other posts, and find you to be disingeneous and
Edited on Wed Apr-30-08 04:49 AM by FrenchieCat
intellectually dishonest.

That's why no one feels like sparing with you.

Why don't you try the approach of posting all of Hillary's accomplishments in the area that you mention, and they we can talk. Maybe if you approached things in a more positive way, folks might want to have a discussion with you.

Obama has worked all of his life for the perfecting of our constitution, including our voting rights, and transparency. and in fact he did so, even as Hillary was working in corporate law and sitting on corporate boards. He has actually made a difference. Hillary in the White House all of these years, and the only thing that she can come up with is dodging sniper fire, and voting for wars ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Oh my...and this from someone who was crying about leaving DU recently.
The question posed was about Obama, not Hillary. Is it really so hard to discuss Obama and this question posed without propping him up against someone else?

As usual Frenchie, you do not disappoint. You could not avoid the typical anti-Hillary drivel about sniper fire. What about Obama saying he could no more disown Wright than he could the whole African-American community? Well Obama threw Wright under the bus and disowned him, I guess that means Obama did not mean what he said to start with or he lied. I did not hear him say it was his first response (besides his book reference {surprise surprise - I have read it}), I did hear him say it and cannot disown him, I disown him now." Obama knew, even before he announced his desire to run, that Rev. Wright was going to be a 'problem'. Obama did not disown the good Revenrend until it became about Obama. The Reverend was telling the truth, Obama is a politician, he says what he has to say. After all the love fests for Wright on here I saw, I cannot believe everyone thinks Obama should disown him for telling the truth when he didn't do it previously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
C_U_L8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
46. You weren't asking a question, you were making an accusation.
"explain this" followed by a false premise is not an "innocent" question and you know it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:36 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Frenchiecat:
Your facts have no place on these boards. Please allow the Obama-haters to revel in their ignorance. Sorry citizen_jane for disturbing you; please continue. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. You do not annoy me...
I love watching children play, especially when they are having fun.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:44 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. I understand your bitterness
since Obama is going to win your state of North Carolina and there's nothing you can do about it other than cry to us on these boards. :cry:
Must be so frustrating feeling like you're banging your head against a wall. :banghead:
And I'm SO not reveling in laughter at this. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:35 AM
Response to Original message
12. He doesn't have the constitutional authority
to override the President. He's already said that when he becomes President, he will have the Department of Justice go through all of Bush's executive orders and get rid of the ones that are unconstitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. He has the expertise to fight it though and make it harder to quietly pass unconstitutional bills.
And waiting until he is President (which there are no guarantees of that happening) to fix what he should have fought....COP OUT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:40 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. You obviously don't know how the Senate works
If each Senator had this kind of magical power to stop everything, nothing would ever get done. He can only ask Senators like Hillary Clinton to not be a Bush enabler, but he can't make her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. I know fully well how the senate works and
am learning more how Obama is a great talker on the campaign trail with tales of 'reaching across the aisle', this must have been what he was talking about,he reached across the aisle and shook their hand and said I will not fight you on this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:12 AM
Response to Reply #20
30. Yeah, your extensive knowledge has come shining through in this thread like a shadow in the night.
Maybe try new batteries. :shrug:/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doityourself Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #30
37. Lmao..funny post..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bushesass Donating Member (20 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
21. Obama has
done nothing in the Senate and is will be defeated bad in the General election thanks to a great spiritual leader. What it boils down to is just another poitician that panders to whoever to get whoevers vote. There are people who are so blinded by stupidity who can't see that Obama is just a man running for a job who will say whatever to get the job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hokies4ever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:46 AM
Response to Reply #21
23. How's that Woodstock Museum working out for Hillary?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:51 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. You don't know what you are talking about.....
show me the money! Show me Hillary's accomplishment (or McCain) whichever you support.

Judge Him by His Laws
By Charles Peters
Friday, January 4, 2008; A21

...Since most of Obama's legislation was enacted in Illinois, most of the evidence is found there -- and it has been largely ignored by the media in a kind of Washington snobbery that assumes state legislatures are not to be taken seriously. <>

Consider a bill into which Obama clearly put his heart and soul. The problem he wanted to address was that too many confessions, rather than being voluntary, were coerced -- by beating the daylights out of the accused.

Obama proposed requiring that interrogations and confessions be videotaped.
This seemed likely to stop the beatings, but the bill itself aroused immediate opposition. There were Republicans who were automatically tough on crime and Democrats who feared being thought soft on crime. There were death penalty abolitionists, some of whom worried that Obama's bill, by preventing the execution of innocents, would deprive them of their best argument. Vigorous opposition came from the police, too many of whom had become accustomed to using muscle to "solve" crimes. And the incoming governor, Rod Blagojevich, announced that he was against it.
Obama had his work cut out for him.
<>
The police tried to limit the videotaping to confessions, but Obama, knowing that the beatings were most likely to occur during questioning, fought -- successfully -- to keep interrogations included in the required videotaping.

Then he talked Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping.
---------
Obama didn't stop there. He played a major role in passing many other bills, including the state's first earned-income tax credit to help the working poor

and the first ethics and campaign finance law in 25 years (a law a Post story said made Illinois "one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure").


Obama's commitment to ethics continued in the U.S. Senate, where he co-authored the new lobbying reform law that, among its hard-to-sell provisions, requires lawmakers to disclose the names of lobbyists who "bundle" contributions for them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303_pf.html
Ethics and Lobbying Reform

Throughout his political career, Barack Obama has been a leader in fighting for open and honest government. During his first year as an Illinois State Senator, he helped lead the fight to pass Illinois' first ethics reform bill in 25 years. As a U.S. Senator, he has spearheaded the effort to clean up Washington in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Senator Obama is one of the authors of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (S. 2180). The bill would lengthen the cooling off period to two years for lawmakers and staff who seek to become lobbyists, and it would require immediate disclosure as soon as any job negotiations begin.

The bill would open conference committee meetings to the public and require that all bills be posted on the Internet for 24 hours before they can be voted on by the Senate. Finally, the bill would end all lobbyist-funded gifts, meals, and travel and strengthen the Senate office that monitors lobbyist disclosure forms.


In addition, Senator Obama has sponsored three other ethics-related bills:

The Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission Act (S. 2259) The bill would create an outside ethics commission to receive complaints from the public on alleged ethics violations by members of Congress, staff, and lobbyists. The commission would have the authority to investigate complaints and present public findings of fact about possible violations to the House and Senate Ethics Committee and Justice Department. By taking the initial fact finding out of the hands of members of Congress, who are often reluctant to investigate their colleagues, the bill ensures prompt and fair disposition of public complaints.

To avoid manipulation of the commission for political purposes, any person filing a complaint that they knew to be false would be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment. No complaints could be filed against a member of Congress for 30 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election.

The bill has been widely endorsed by reform groups. According to Common Cause, "this legislation would do more to reform ethics and lobbying than any other piece of legislation introduced thus far because it goes to the heart of the problem: enforcement."

Public Citizen praised Senator Obama "for having the courage to challenge the business-as-usual environment on Capitol Hill and introduce far-reaching legislation." Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington stated: "This is the first bill that deals seriously with the lack of oversight and enforcement in the existing congressional ethics process. . . . This bill will help restore Americans' confidence in the integrity of Congress.

The Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act (S. 2261)
The bill would shed light on the almost 16,000 earmarks that were included in spending bills in 2005. Under the bill, all earmarks, including the name of the requestor and a justification for the earmark, would have to be disclosed 72 hours before they could be considered by the full Senate.
Senators would be prohibited from advocating for an earmark if they have a financial interest in the project or earmark recipient. And, earmark recipients would have to disclose to an Office of Public Integrity the amount that they have spent on registered lobbyists and the names of those lobbyists.

The Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness through Advance Notification, Updates, and Posting Act (The CLEAN UP Act) (S. 2179)

The bill aims to improve public access to information about all legislation, including conference reports and appropriations legislation, in particular after hurried, end-of-session negotiations. Conference committee meetings and deliberations would have to be open to the public or televised, and conference reports would have to identify changes made to the bill from the House and Senate versions. Finally, no bill could be considered by the full Senate unless the measure has been made available to all Senators and the general public on the Internet for at least 72 hours.


Destroying Surplus and Unguarded Conventional Weapons

After visiting weapons stockpiles in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan, Senators Lugar and Obama introduced S. 2566, which would expand the cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons.

Sex Offenders



Senator Obama cosponsored Dru's Law (S. 792) which creates a nationwide sex offender database and requires greater monitoring of sex offenders upon their release from prison. The bill passed the Senate on July 28, 2005.

He also cosponsored the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. This bill increases the penalties for sex crimes against children under the age of 12, and creates a national Internet site known as the National Sex Offender Public Registry.
The bill will also provide grants to local law enforcement to assist in preventing and investigating sex crimes against minors.


Violence Against Women Act

Senator Obama cosponsored extension of Violence Against Women Act (S. 1197), which passed the Senate on October 4, 2005, and was signed into law. The Act provides increased funds to law enforcement to combat violence against women. It also establishes a sexual assault services program and provides grants for education programs to prevent domestic violence and encourage reporting of abuses.


The Senate Immigration Bill

Senator Obama played a key role in the crafting of the immigration reform bill that the Senate passed in May 2006.
The bill, which President Bush supports, would provide more funds and technology for border security and prevent employers from skirting our laws by hiring illegal immigrants. The bill also would provide immigrants who are now contributing and responsible members of society an opportunity to remain in the country and earn citizenship. But not all illegal immigrants would be guaranteed the right to remain in the U.S. under this proposal; they would first have to pay a substantial fine and back taxes, learn English, satisfy a work requirement, and pass a criminal background check.

Senator Obama offered three amendments that were included in the Senate bill. The first amendment strengthens the requirement that a job be offered at a prevailing wage to American workers before it is offered to a guestworker. The second amendment makes it simple, but mandatory, for employers to verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the United States. And the third amendment authorizes $3 million a year for the FBI to improve the speed and accuracy of the background checks required for immigrants seeking to become citizens.



Drinking Water Security

Senator Obama drafted an amendment, which was included in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed the EPW Committee on July 20, 2005.
The Obama amendment would provide $37.5 million over the next five years to protect the country's drinking water from a terrorist attack. It also instructs Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control to develop the tools needed by drinking water systems to detect and respond to the introduction of biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants by terrorists.


Greater Funding for Veterans Health Care

As early as February 2005, Senator Obama warned of a shortfall in the VA budget. Four months later, the VA reported that in fact it had more than a $1 billion shortfall. Senator Obama cosponsored a bill that led to a $1.5 billion increase in veterans' medical care. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama cosponsored measures that would have provided additional funding increases for veterans.

In September 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988) to improve the VA’s planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future. The bill requires the VA and the Department of Defense to work together and share data so that we know precisely how many troops will be returning home and entering the VA system.

Homeless Veterans
Every year, 400,000 veterans across the country, including an estimated 38,000 in Chicago, spend some time living on the streets. Senator Obama has been a leader in fighting homelessness among veterans. He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) (S. 1180) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually. During the debate on the Fiscal Year 2007 budget, Senator Obama passed an amendment to increase funding for homeless veterans programs by $40 million. These funds would benefit programs that provide food, clothing, mental health and substance abuse counseling, and employment and housing assistance to homeless veterans.

In June 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Homes for Heroes Act (S. 3475), which would expand access to long-term affordable housing for homeless veterans by setting aside $225 million to purchase, build or rehabilitate homes and apartments for veterans. The legislation would also greatly expand existing veterans rental assistance programs and create a new office within the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to coordinate services to homeless veterans.

Food for Recovering Soldiers

Senator Obama introduced an amendment that became law providing food services to wounded veterans receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services at military hospitals.
Previously, service members receiving physical therapy or rehabilitation services in a medical hospital for more than 90 days were required to pay for their meals.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and TBI
Senator Obama fought a VA proposal that would have required a reexamination of all PTSD cases in which full benefits were granted. He and Senator Durbin passed an amendment that has become law preventing the VA from conducting a review of cases, without first providing Congress with a complete report regarding the implementation of such review. In November 2005, the VA announced that it was abandoning its planned review.

Senator Obama passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). TBI is being called the signature injury of the Iraq war. The blast from improvised explosive devices can jar the brain, causing bruising or permanent damage. Concussions can have huge health effects including slowed thinking, headaches, memory loss, sleep disturbance, attention and concentration deficits, and irritability.

Easing the Transition to the VA Senator Obama passed an amendment that became law requiring the Department of Defense (DOD) to report to Congress on the delayed development of an electronic medical records system compatible with the VA's electronic medical records system. DOD's delay in developing such a system has created obstacles for service members transitioning into the VA health care system.

In September 2006, Senator Obama introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act (S. 3988) which would help veterans transition from the DOD health system to the VA system by extending the window in which new veterans can get mental health care from two years to five years. The Lane Evans bill also would improve transition services for members of the National Guard and Reserves.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

Global Poverty Act of 2007 (just passed out of committee)

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.
http://obama.senate.gov /



Legislation would aim to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) today hailed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's passage of the Global Poverty Act (S.2433), which requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive policy to cut extreme global poverty in half by 2015 through aid, trade, debt relief, and coordination with the international community, businesses and NGOs. This legislation was introduced in December. Smith and Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-AL) sponsored the House version of the bill (H.R. 1302), which passed the House last September.

"With billions of people living on just dollars a day around the world, global poverty remains one of the greatest challenges and tragedies the international community faces," said Senator Obama. "It must be a priority of American foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty and ensuring every child has food, shelter, and clean drinking water. As we strive to rebuild America's standing in the world, this important bill will demonstrate our promise and commitment to those in the developing world. Our commitment to the global economy must extend beyond trade agreements that are more about increasing corporate profits than about helping workers and small farmers everywhere. I commend Chairman Biden and Ranking Member Lugar for supporting this bill and moving it forward quickly."

"Poverty, hunger, and disease will be among the most serious challenges confronting the world in the 21st century," Senator Hagel said. "This legislation provides the President of the United States the framework and resources to help implement a comprehensive policy to reduce global poverty. It is the human condition that has always driven the great events of history. This is a responsibility of all citizens of the world."
http://obama.senate.gov/press/080213-obama_hagel_can_1 / ---------------------

This compliments this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4678548


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #21
31. Good luck this time around!!!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:48 AM
Response to Reply #21
42. Speaking of Obama saying anything to get elected--this is what outraged Obama about
what Wright was saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indimuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:06 AM
Response to Original message
28. Damn, Your GOOD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:13 AM
Response to Reply #28
32. ..
:pals:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goclark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #32
43. Excellent
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
34. He did take a stand. He voted to restore it, spoke out, did everything he could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:30 AM
Response to Original message
36. And you're a Clinton supporter asking this
:wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. So what? Clinton supporters cannot ask questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:56 AM
Response to Reply #36
48. Obama supports do not ask tough questions of their leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 05:35 AM
Response to Original message
38. He voted present? No "fierce urgency of now" for Obama then?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #38
41. Talk is cheap, it takes action to make change.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #41
55. "Don't tell me words don't matter!"--David Axlerod/Deval Patrick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 06:51 AM
Response to Reply #38
44. the 'now' of the 'fierce urgency' is the stump speeches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeffrey_X Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
51. He was too busy setting up black power / anti-white marches and rallies with Wright.
Edited on Wed Apr-30-08 10:15 AM by jeffrey_X
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
52. Did nothing?

http://irregularnews.com/senate/senObamaIL.html
# On June 7, 2006, Senator Barack Obama helped to vote down a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which would have specifically made marriages between same-sex partners unconstitutional. Senator Obama showed the necessary resolve, understanding of liberty, moral compass, and general good sense to vote this amendment down, engaging in the sort of leadership that we can admire, at least in this instance. You\'ll be pilloried by the ranks of haters, Senator Obama, but you've earned some admiration for your action here in other quarters. Thank you for affirming the civil rights of all Americans, even the unpopular ones.
# On May 26, 2006, Senator Obama voted against the confirmation of General Michael Hayden to his new post as head of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Although General Hayden proceeded to take the top job at this civilian intelligence agency, handing it over to control by military personnel, such a decision occurred over the strenous objection of Sen. Obama. Senator Obama rightly stood against the decision to put a military officer in charge of a civilian spying organization, and rightly stood against the implicit endorsement of Gen. Hayden\'s anti-American surveillance programs. Hayden was in charge of the Bush administration operation of spying for the government into the personal lives of tens of millions of Americans who are innocent of any crime. Even though Senator Obama\'s stand was ultimately unsuccessful, we saw a great example of political backbone that day. Thank you, Senator Obama, for fulfilling the oath every member of the Senate takes to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.
# The Patriot Act is a betrayal of the great American tradition of liberty because it encourages the government to spy on the legal, personal activities of Americans who have not broken the law. The Bush Administration is using that power to grab information out of commercial and public databases and assemble them into a single giant computer database through which the private affairs of every American citizen can be tracked by government officials. Senator Obama took a brave stand by fillibustering an the reauthorization of the Patriot Act and stopping the reauthorization of the act in its tracks. We need more Americans in government like Senator Obama, a true patriot willing to take a stand in defense of liberty.

# On May 18, 2006, Senator Obama cast an important vote against Senate Amendment 4064 to S. 2611. Amendment 4064. Unfortunately, despite the NO vote of Sen. Obama, the amendment passed. As a consequence, the Senate declared English to be the National Language of the United States of America, and that "no person has a right, entitlement, or claim to have the Government of the United States or any of its officials or representatives act, communicate, perform or provide services, or provide materials in any language other than English."
----------------------------
It is unfortunate that the English National Language Amendment passed. But by voting against this amendment, Senator Obama showed a tenacious commitment to tolerance, inclusion and diversity in governance and citizenship. It is a shame that more Senators did not act as Senator Obama did.
# The Patriot Act was created in a time of irrational fear, when an emotionally overwrought senator might be excused for approving a measure that enables the government to access the lives of everyday innocent citizens. But four and a half years later, there is no excuse. Unfortunately, 89 out of our 100 United States senators voted to renew the Patriot Act, sacrificing liberty on the altar of political expediency. Senator Obama was one of just ten senators to vote against the renewal of the Patriot Act. Thank you, Senator Obama. You have shown your mettle as a true defender of freedom, acting in defense of liberty even when it is difficult to do so.

# Sen. Obama did the right thing by voting against the Graham Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's Amendment inserted the following text into the U.S. Code:

The Graham Amendment has three effects:
1. It removes the power of the courts to hear a writ of habeas corpus from any non-citizen who is held prisoner by the Secretary of Defense. That means that no court will have the power to determine the identities of people being held prisoner by the Secretary of Defense, where they are being held prisoner, and why they are being held prisoner.
2. It removes the power of the courts to make any ruling on any aspect of any prisoner’s detention. This includes torture.
3. It makes the changes retroactive. That means that even if torture was done two years ago, the amendment takes away the power of the courts to do anything about it.

There is no excuse for this removal of liberty from the American nation.

Thank you, Senator Obama, for doing what you could to oppose this downright unAmerican amendment.
# Sen. Obama voted in favor of amendment offered by Senator Carl Levin that would have established "a national commission on policies and practices on the treatment of detainees since September 11, 2001." We've been waiting years for the establishment of such a commission, which would finally bring about an independent investigation into the secret torture prisons of the Bush Administration. We have been of the opinion that the American people deserve to know whether their government is torturing prisoners and committing other war crimes in the name of the United States of America. Thankfully, Senator Obama agrees. Unfortunately, the Levin amendment passed, but Senator Obama did what was possible to shine a light on the nefarious practice of torture, and so deserves our thanks -- and our vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a display of insider pageantry devoid of substance, John Roberts has been confirmed as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and given his age, America will have to suffer under him for quite some time. But Senator Obama was one of the few who stood firm and demanded actual information about the experience and professional history of John Roberts. If only more Senators had Obama's backbone, America would have avoided the national shame that is the Roberts era.
# By voting against S.256, Senator Obama stood against corporate interests trying to make it harder for average people who run into hard times to keep even the most basic of assets. Unfortunately, this bill passed, which means that when struggling people run into already rich megacreditors who want just a bit more profit, the megacreditors will win. Even though the bill passed, Senator Obama should be congratulated for having the courage to stand up to corporate interests and reaffirm that in America, people should come first.
# By voting to reject George W. Bush's choice of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, Senator Obama has taken the common-sense position that it's unacceptable for the top law enforcement office of the United States to be a man who put his stamp on memos approving the use of torture, and who says the Geneva Conventions don't have to be followed. Thank you, Senator Obama, for maintaining the integrity of your moral vision.
# Sen. Obama has formally supported S. 20, which would expand access to family planning services for low-income families, giving poor families access to contraception, reducing long-term health care costs and cutting the rate of unwanted pregnancies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:34 AM
Response to Original message
53. why didn't hillary? is this all you have? weaaaaak...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
54. About those "Present" votes...

Friday, January 25, 2008
'Present' votes defended by Ill. lawmakers
By Daniel C. Vock, Stateline.org Staff Writer

In most legislatures, lawmakers vote either “yes” or “no” on bills, but in Illinois, senators and representatives can hit a third button for a “present” vote. Now that quirk — not unique to Illinois — has sparked heated exchanges among Democrats vying for president.

The two main rivals of Illinois’ U.S. Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination accused him during a debate Monday (Jan. 21) of ducking important votes by voting “present” about 130 times during his eight years in the Illinois Senate.

But Obama’s former colleagues who still serve in the Illinois Capitol say that the attacks are off-base and that either Obama’s opponents don’t understand how things work in Springfield or they are deliberately distorting his record.

“To insinuate the ‘present’ vote means you’re indecisive, that you don’t have the courage to hold public office, that’s a stretch. But, it’s good politics,” said state Rep. Bill Black (R), a 22-year veteran of the House and his party’s floor leader.


“The ‘present’ vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue,” said state Rep. John Fritchey (D), an Obama supporter.
------------------------------------------------------
In Illinois, the “present” vote works as a vote against a measure during final action.

State Sen. John Cullerton (D) calls the “present” vote “a no vote with an explanation.” Legally, there’s not much difference between the two votes, but practically, it can let the sponsors or other legislators know of problems with the bill that should be corrected.
----------------------------------------------------------
Fritchey, the House Democrat who chairs a committee on civil law, said he often used the “present” vote when he thought a bill had constitutional or other legal problems.

That’s also the reason Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, gave during the debate for voting “present” on a bill he originally had sponsored.

“After I had sponsored it and helped to get it passed, it turned out that there was a legal provision in it that was problematic and needed to be fixed so that it wouldn’t be struck down,” he said.

Sometimes using “present” votes is part of a larger strategy.


Op-Ed Contributor
‘Present’ Perfect
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

By ABNER J. MIKVA
Published: February 16, 2008

SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON should probably be forgiven for not remembering the course on the state Constitution that she would have had to take as an eighth grader in Illinois. But had she remembered it, she would have known that Senator Barack Obama was not ducking his responsibility in the Illinois Senate when he voted “present” on many issues.


Unlike Congress and the legislatures of most other states, each chamber of the Illinois Legislature requires a “constitutional majority” to pass a bill. The state Senate has 59 members, so it takes 30 affirmative votes. This makes a “present” vote the same as a no. If a bill receives 29 votes, but the rest of the senators vote “present,” it fails.

In Congress, in contrast, a bill can pass in either the House or the Senate as long as more people vote for it than against it. If 10 people vote in favor and nine against, and the rest either vote “present” or don’t vote at all, the bill passes. It can actually pass with just one vote, as long as no one votes no.


In the Illinois Senate, there can be strategic reasons for voting “present” rather than simply no. A member might approve the intent of legislation, but not its scope or the way it has been drafted. A “present” vote can send a signal to a bill’s sponsors that the legislator might support an amended version. Voting “present” can also be a way to exercise fiscal restraint, without opposing the subject of the bill.
------------------------------
It never occurred to me or to any of my critics that I was ducking responsibility for a making a decision. Mr. Obama was an outspoken member of the Illinois Senate, and not someone known for dodging questions, whether they were on ethics, police responsibility, women’s choice or any other hot-button issue


Even if Senator Clinton does not remember the constitutional majority requirement in Illinois, one of her advisers might have explained it to her. When I was White House counsel, President Clinton frequently reminded me that he had taught constitutional law before he ran for public office. I would hope that he would assume that another constitutional scholar — Barack Obama — would be aware of his voting responsibilities as a state legislator.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16mikva.html?ex=1360818000&en=9417ee6115534086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RememberWellstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
56. He has a good speech
Thats about all we know of who he is...even now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-30-08 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
57. Obama wants to "bring us together". No more red staes and blue states,blah, blah, blah.
:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC