The Wisconsin thugs did not use a procedural move or trick. The move they used doesn't exist...

[deminks]

because it was ILLEGAL. Sorry for yelling.

I see this repeated by the MEdia all morning. The Wisconsin republicans used a "procedural move." Don't believe the lie. They were not justified in any way in what they did. The move they used to cram the union busting down our throats does not exist. Because it was illegal. They usurped power. They have taken the state government away from the people. All people, not just the unions. They have staged a coup. Why we are not calling for their arrest is beyond me.

[FBaggins]

1. Does wishin make it so?

Can you elaborate on exactly what was illegal? Or is it just that we don't want them to win?

[annabanana]

3. At least there is no question that it is immoral and outside the spirit

of the law.

[FBaggins]

9. Certainly immoral.

Outside the "spirit" of the law? Sure, but then so was the quorum-busting attempt.

The spirit of the law is that if you win the gubernatorial race and majorities in the legislature, you get to make the laws. When you're in the minority you get to point out that those aren't the laws that YOU would pass and hope that the people agree with you the next time it comes to a vote.

[Bad Thoughts]

8. There are a number of constitutional and procedural questions

that have been raised, first being inadequate time after the presentation of the bill and the announcement of the vote, the second being the fiscal impact of the bill. The second point, in my opinion, is strongest because it rests on constitutional issues: a quorum is necessary to take a vote on any bill that has any fiscal impact (not just budgetary). Obviously, Walker and the Republicans have argued for weeks that stripping collective bargaining was a necessary fiscal fix, so they can't pivot on this issue too easily--their own words can be used against them. Even if the courts rule that there is no fiscal impact, in puts Walker in a difficult rhetorical position.

[FBaggins]

11. "fiscal" was always just shorthand for the actual requirement.

The first concern was pretty clearly bluster. There are loads of ways around that rule and it appears that they used a couple of them.

The second is more complicated. It isn't really "fiscal" bills (though I've used that description as well) it's specific KINDS of fiscal bills. Now, I've read a claim this morning that they screwed up and left in something that would qualify, but I haven't seen it yet. They supposedly submitted the changes to the nonpartisan group that judges such things but it's possible that a mistake was made.

Fingers crossed.

[Bad Thoughts]

16. Problem with "fiscal"

This is the opinion of one of the Volokh bloggers:

<[div class="excerpt">Article VII, §8 of the Wisconsin Constitution requires a three-fifths quorum only for statutes that are fiscal, that is, statutes that actually appropriate money, impose taxes, create a debt, or release a claim owed to the state. Even then, these categories have consistently been interpreted in the most limited form conceivable. Indeed, the Wisconsin attorney general in 1971 gave a formal opinion to the legislature that a bill that changed collective bargaining rights substantially was not fiscal in nature and was not subject to the three-fifths super quorum provision. Because collective bargaining rights and that very statutory chapter (ch. 111) are at the heart of the proposed Senate Bill 11, the most controversial portions of the bill could be passed constitutionally with just a simple majority of elected members present, without a three-fifths quorum.

[FBaggins]

17. The AG in '71 was a republican

But yeah, it's hard to see how changing collective bargainin rights falls into "appropriate money, impose taxes, create a debt, or release a claim owed to the state."

[shraby]

18. The bill hadn't been written up when the Senate voted on it

according to one of the Dem representatives. No one could even read it. Sounds to me like one of the "fill in the blanks".

[FBaggins]

19. That's the kind of thing that can be raised as an objection on the floor

They didn't have to worry about that because they knew that there were no Democratic senators around to raise the objection.

[kentuck]

2. As for illegal...

I question if it is legal to split a bill into different parts without the approval of the entire Senate? I wonder if there is a rule that says that bills must be voted on as they are written, without unilateral change by one side or the other?

[reformist2]

4. Try to stop this in the courts, but it's really time to devote our energy to the recall elections.

Because say what you want, the real crime is that the Repugs have majorities in Wisconsin at all!

[Recursion]

20. Courts never intervene in the process of legislation

They will take over in cases where the legislature throws in the towel (like redistricting in some states) but questions of a bill's passage's adherence to a chamber's rules are non-judiciable.

[BzaDem]

5. While the passage of the bill might have violated the open meetings law

they could just pass it again tomorrow with the proper notice, and it would be legal. Republicans have majorities in both houses and the governor's office, so they can pass the bill. A 3/5 quorum is not required for the collective bargaining provisions alone (at least according to the Democratic state Senators who MSNBC talked to last night).

[kentuck]

7. Unless the collective bargaining provisions have an impact on the budget...

whether they cost money or save money?

[BzaDem]

26. That's not the standard.

It doesn't appropriate money or change taxes. I wish you were right, but if the Dem state senators in Wisconsin are correct, then it can pass standalone without a super quorum.

[Lefta Dissenter]

15. you're right on that,

but all we can do is try to delay, delay, delay... and make sure the public knows how these people are breaking laws and rules and moral and ethical codes.

while getting the recalls of the state senators underway. We don't NEED to take the full 60 days to gather signatures. The sooner those petitions are turned in, the sooner the recall elections take place (6 weeks after). I hope the potential dem candidates are organized and ready to run their pants off.

[DrDan]

6. in what way is it illegal?

[walldude]

23. Not allowed to have a vote without 24 hours notice.

[DrDan]

24. then it should be challenged in court

but then the gop will simply provide that notification and the results will be the same.

[Lefta Dissenter]

10. I used to work for a local government

Training from Dept of Justice told us that the world had to be on fire in order to justify less than 24 hours notice for a meeting, and that's only if we could actually DO something about it. And that's a LAW, not just a rule of the legislature.

But apparently they don't care. They don't care that they have been in violation of court orders regarding opening the Capitol.

Walker doesn't care that he's in violation of the public records laws.

Is this all just baiting, until someone from our side does something stupid? I hope that doesn't happen.

[madrchsod]

13. of course it`s baiting and everyone in wisconsin knows this.

will someone on our side do something stupid...? that will be up to our side to make sure it does`t happen.
we`ll keep your guys safe ind warm here in illinois while the people in wisconsin show the real power of the people.

[mdmc]

12. awesome. the unions can sue and have the law thrown out

if it was illegal..

[Recursion]

21. Once it's certified by the clerk, it's law

Courts don't enforce a legislative chamber's rules. This is actually a feature, not a bug, in the long run.

[tavalon]

14. No that one really does need to be yelled, no apologies needed

ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.

Did I mention that it was also morally reprehensible? But then what the courts will be looking at is not the morality but that it was:


ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL. ILLEGAL.

[LWolf]

22. Who is going to be challenging the legality? nt

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.