ECON Speaker? Martial Law? ... Huh?

fredkc

Retired Class Clown
I have to admit to being puzzled about this, and under what authority. I am also uncertain if he doesn't perhaps mean that he and his fellow congress-critters are unable to leave town, and so he refers to himself and his colleagues, but 1 min 20 sec into this 1 min 50 second clip:

Rep Michael Burgess(R) of Texas 1:20 PM, EST Sep. 28, 2008 says,
"...and Mr. Speaker, I understand we are under martial law, as declared by The Speaker last night"

huh?
 

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
I have to admit to being puzzled about this, and under what authority. I am also uncertain if he doesn't perhaps mean that he and his fellow congress-critters are unable to leave town, and so he refers to himself and his colleagues, but 1 min 20 sec into this 1 min 50 second clip:

Rep Michael Burgess(R) of Texas 1:20 PM, EST Sep. 28, 2008 says,
"...and ladies and gentlemen, I understand we are under martial law, as declared by The Speaker last night"

huh?


A link?
 

Satanta

Stone Cold Crazy
_______________
Sonds like a Texan to me. Sounds like a frustrated and pissed off Texan.

Must be talking about 'Martial Law' applying to the Reps as he prefaces with the comment about not being needed for the last 22mos.

As far as 'Martial Law' for the masses?

Well. Might work in Jersey but out here? Not a chance. Aint got enough manpower to close down the primaryand secondary roads much less all the little side routes and trails.

Plus we got a lot of guns.
 

Red Baron

Paleo-Conservative
_______________
Rep Michael Burgess was using "martial law" in a rhetorical sense because of how the Republican minority has been trampled by the Democrats.
 

fredkc

Retired Class Clown
Sounds like a frustrated and pissed off Texan.

S'what it sounds like to me, as well, but... in the context it seems fairly reckless speech, at best.

I can think of nothing in the Constitution that allows the Speaker to do any such thing, unless the speaker has recently taken some new oath, pursuant to several deaths WAY above her pay grade we know nothing about. ;)

Now, I believe she CAN hold Congress in session for misc. "emergency" situations, but that would be in the house rules, I think.

Only thing relevant I find in the Constitution is Article 1 Section 5 paragraph 3:
"Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
It's standard parliamentary procedure and means in essence that they can't leave until they are done; applicable to Congress, it forces a vote.

This is just a procedural thing BUT it also takes away any time for proposed bills (non-finalized) to be subjected to public scrutiny as well and how they'll be able to vote so fast on the non-finalized tenative bailout/rescue plan.

http://rules-republicans.house.gov/ShortTopics/Read.aspx?id=220

H. Res. ___ -- Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to the consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules

September 27, 2008

H.Res. ___ – Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules

Managers: Slaughter / Dreier

BLANKET MARTIAL LAW RULE THROUGH

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29TH



Motion offered by:
Summary of Motion
Vote Tally

Dreier
To specify that the provisions of the rule only apply to a bill addressing the current financial crisis or a bill relating to the extension of tax credits.
Defeated 4 to 9

Dreier
To provide that the House shall not consider any rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee, pursuant to this resolution, unless the Majority Leader has given at least 6 hours notice.
Defeated 4 to 9

Dreier
To provide that the provisions of the rule only apply to resolutions reported unanimously from the Rules Committee.
Defeated 4 to 9

McGovern
To report the martial law rule waiving a requirement of Clause 6(a) of Rule XIII with respect to consideration of any resolution reported from the Rules Committee, through the legislative day of September 29, 2008. It does not apply to any specific measure, but rather grants blanket authority.
Agreed to by voice vote
 
Last edited:

SassyinAZ

Inactive
I know the phrase "martial law" triggers all sorts of spasms in people and above I confirmed about it being a standard procedure, BUT, I don't want to read like I was downplaying this, it's important.

In fact, the more I think about it, especially relative to the bailout/rescue plan or whatever it is being called today, it is really outrageous and what it truly means is that the House and Senate won't even know fully what they are voting on, they likely won't know (some just plain won't care) that the voters are screaming out against this and us, the peons won't know what the plan is or isn't until after it's done.
 

Anjou

Inactive
What are all the occasions in memory that this procedure has been used?

(I am glad they are staying till they get it worked out, that said.)
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
The only thing a search yields is from 2006:

http://www.cbpp.org/7-28-06bud-stmt.htm

July 28, 2006

HOUSE LEADERSHIP INVOKES “MARTIAL LAW,” FORCING MEMBERS TO VOTE ON KEY BILLS WITHOUT FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON: MOVE REPRESENTS EROSION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

Statement by Robert Greenstein
Executive Director, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The House Republican Leadership has announced its intention to have the House vote, before adjourning on Friday or Saturday, on several major pieces of legislation that are not yet available to House members in final form because behind-closed-door negotiations on the proposals are still going on.

The Leadership apparently intends to use a process known as “martial law” to allow these bills to be brought to the floor very shortly after negotiations are completed, with the result that Members of the House are likely to have virtually no time to examine and consider the details of the legislation before they will be required to vote on it.

Among the matters the House may be asked to vote on under martial law are a major conference report on pension legislation, a costly bill that would permanently reduce the estate tax and extend certain expiring tax provisions, and a bill that could combine a controversial health insurance proposal with an increase in the minimum wage (there also are reports that the estate tax, minimum wage, and expiring tax provisions may be combined into a single bill). The House Rules Committee on Thursday afternoon reported a resolution that would provide martial law authority in relation to all of these bills.

Under the martial law procedure, longstanding House rules that require at least one day between the unveiling of significant legislation and the House floor vote on that legislation — so that Members can learn what they are being asked to vote on — are swept away.

Instead, under “martial law,” the Leadership can file legislation with tens or hundreds of pages of fine print and move immediately to debate and votes on it, before Members of Congress, the media, or the public have an opportunity to understand fully what provisions have been altered or inserted into the legislation behind closed doors. This is the procedure that the Leadership intends to use to muscle through important bills in the next two days.

This procedure diminishes democracy.

When major legislation is being considered that would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt or affect millions of Americans in other ways, Members of Congress should have an opportunity to study the legislation for more than a couple of hours and to know what they are voting on.

The Bills in Question

The pension bill, which contains important changes in the rules governing defined benefit pension plans and tax laws affecting retirement savings (and also may serve as a vehicle for tax changes unrelated to retirement), has been the subject of vigorous debate for months among members of the House-Senate conference committee.

Although a final agreement on the conference report has reportedly been imminent for days, the conferees were still working out differences as of Thursday evening.

The legislation that would provide for a permanent reduction in the estate tax and the extension of a number of popular expiring tax provisions (such as the research and development tax credit) has not been finalized because the pension bill conferees are still debating whether some or all of those provisions should be included in the conference report on the pension bill.

Legislation that would promote so-called “association health plans” and increase the minimum wage (and likely contain other provisions intended to make the minimum wage increase more acceptable to House conservatives) also is still being negotiated behind closed doors by Republican leaders.

Some of these bills are very costly.

The sharp reductions in the estate tax that are under consideration, and provisions making permanent the pension tax cuts enacted in 2001 (which are expected to be in the pension conference report), would cost approximately $325 billion over the ten-year period from 2007 to 2016. And because most of these provisions would not take effect until after 2010, their long-term costs are much larger. During the first decade when these provisions would be fully in effect, 2012 to 2021, they would reduce revenues by about $700 billion. When the increased interest payments on the debt are included, the total impact on the budget rises to nearly $900 billion over that decade.

Despite these large costs, the plan of the House Republican Leadership appears to be to pass the martial-law rule the House Rules Committee reported last night, allowing any or all of the three bills to go directly to the House floor as soon as the private negotiations on them have been concluded — and before the public, the media, or even Members of the House themselves have an opportunity to examine the revised legislation carefully.

Among other things, this arouses suspicion that some of the changes that are being made in the proposals may be presented as easing certain controversial provisions of the bills, even if the reality is different. It also creates concern that some special-interest provisions may have been inserted into the bills, or some special interests may otherwise have been protected, in order to secure votes.

Use of the martial law procedure will enable the Leadership to seek to round up the votes needed to pass the bills before a full picture is available of what the bills actually do.

What is “Martial Law”?

The House leadership is using a parliamentary gambit to evade a longstanding House rule that is supposed to ensure that this kind of obfuscation does not occur. That House rule (Rule XIII(6)(a)) provides that a resolution (called a rule) reported by the Rules Committee cannot be considered by the House on the same legislative day that the rule is reported (except by a two-thirds vote of the House). This is supposed to ensure that Members of the House and the public have at least one day to examine and analyze what is in legislation before they have to debate and vote on it.

To maneuver around this House rule and rush the three proposals discussed above to a vote before they have been fully examined, the Rules Committee reported a rule late Thursday afternoon (H.Res. 958) that would waive the application of Rule XIII(6)(a). Instead, it would allow the Rules Committee to wait until the last minute and not to report the rules governing the consideration of these bills or to release the text of the bills themselves until immediately before debate and votes on the bills, and on the rules governing their consideration, commences.

This extraordinary procedure is known as a “martial law” rule because it suspends the normal procedures and safeguards and allows the House Leadership to operate in a more authoritarian fashion. It enables the Leadership to seek to ram a bill or conference report through before the Members have the opportunity to fully understand what they are voting on.

Legislation that has far-reaching implications for millions of Americans deserves to be considered under a more democratic process. Waiting until the last minute to reveal what is in these bills, and then “spinning” or potentially mischaracterizing changes in the bills without Members of the House or the public having an opportunity to obtain a more objective review of what the legislation does, is unfair to Members of the House. It also is unfair to the millions of Americans whose lives could be affected by this legislation. It represents a further step in reducing the degree of transparency and democracy in how this country is governed and how decisions are made. At a time when our leaders preach the goal of promoting democracy abroad, they should not be reducing it at home.
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
This is 2004.

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2532/1/301/

December 1, 2004 Vol.5, No.24:


Published: 11/30/2004

Congress Delays Spending Bill, Tackles Tax Return Provision

Although it was widely believed Congress would pass and the President would sign the $388 billion omnibus spending bill before Thanksgiving, it appears now the must-pass legislation will remain on hold until Dec. 6 when Congress will reconvene for a second lame-duck session to work on its passage.

The bill, H.R. 4818, includes the nine remaining appropriations bills Congress left unfinished when the fiscal year ended, as well as numerous other riders and provisions.

The bill was not passed as expected because of a controversial rider that threatened the privacy of U.S. taxpayers' records by allowing some Congressional staffers the power to enter Internal Revenue Service (IRS) facilities and examine taxpayers' returns.

The staff of Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) discovered the provision, and in his floor statement on the subject Conrad stated, "That is an outrage. That is absolutely beyond the pale to allow staffers here the access to tax returns of any American citizen, of any American company with absolutely no civil or criminal penalties for the release of that private information. What is going on here that we have a stack of paper that has a little nugget like that stuck in?"

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) echoed Conrad's sentiments, saying "The Republican leadership forced through a so-called 'martial law' rule that required a same-day vote, preventing members of Congress from having enough time to read legislation that spent hundreds of billions of dollars and was thousands of pages long." She proposed requiring that lawmakers have a minimum of three days to read legislation before voting on it.

The House will reconvene Dec. 6 and the Senate Dec. 7 to pass a correcting bill. Meanwhile, Congress passed a continuing resolution that will fund all government programs and agencies through Dec. 8, extending the current CR, which runs through Dec. 3. It is undetermined how long the second lame-duck session will last. The spending bill process is further described in a New York Times article Nov. 24.

The $388 billion spending bill includes funding for thousands of faith-based and community organizations and other agencies and programs. The Compassion Capital Fund will receive $55 million to provide social service grants to charitable and religious organizations. That amount is half of what President Bush requested, but 15.3 percent more than in fiscal year 2004. The bill also funds abstinence programs, job training for the unemployed, education and substance abuse programs. For more information see Highlights of the Conference Report.
 

Altura Ct.

Veteran Member
Marcy Kaptur warns “there are domestic enemies to the Republic”

September 28th, 2008 | Breaking News, Constitutional Crisis, Economy, Federal Reserve

By: D. H. Williams @ 3:39 PM - EST

Photo: Perpetrators of the greatest financial crime in history celebrating their fraud against the American people. Can you name them all? Leave a comment.
28bailout4600.jpg


Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) warns the American people about Constitutional enemies of the Republic and the fraudulent trillion(s) dollar bailout…

“My message to the American people don’t let Congress seal this deal. High financial crimes have been committed.”

“The normal legislative process has been shelved. Only a few insiders are doing the dealing, sounds like insider trading to me. These criminals have so much political power than can shut down the normal legislative process of the highest law making body of this land.”

“We are Constitutionally sworn to protect and defend this Republic against all enemies foreign and domestic. And my friends there are enemies.”

“The people pushing this deal are the very ones who are responsible for the implosion on Wall Street. They were fraudulent then and they are fraudulent now.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAADyc6t4nY

http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2008...s-there-are-domestic-enemies-to-the-republic/


Rep. Michael Burgess - “we are under Martial Law”

September 28th, 2008 | Breaking News, Constitutional Crisis, Economy, Federal Reserve

By: D. H. Williams @ 4:20 PM - EST

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) reports from the floor of the House that the Republicans have been cut out of the process and called unpatriotic for not blindly supporting the fraudulent bailout. He says the only debate has been about what talking points to use on the American people. The most ominous revelation is when he claims the Speaker has declared martial law.
“I have been thrown out of more meetings in this capital in the last 24 hours than I ever thought possible, as a duly elected representative of 825,000 citizens of north Texas.” Said Congressman Burgess.

Burgess asks the Speaker of the House to post the bailout bill on the internet for at least 24 hours instead of passing the largest piece of legislation in US financial history in the “dark of night.”

The most frightening part of Rep. Burgess’ one-minute floor speech is when he says, “Mr. Speaker I understand we are under Martial Law as declared by the speaker last night.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7B4laX1E70

http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/09/28/rep-michael-burgess-we-are-under-martial-law/
 

fredkc

Retired Class Clown
SassyInAz; Thanx a lot.

A House rule was the other possibility I wondered about, when I said,
I am also uncertain if he doesn't perhaps mean that he and his fellow congress-critters are unable to leave town, and so he refers to himself and his colleagues,
as I am not a big follower of that stuff. It's mostly designed to get rid of/hide/bury any kind of meaningful debate, so I have a natiural resentment.

This notion of members being left to discuss "talking point" as he said is flat criminal, IMO. And I notice the game is, or appears to be afoot to get this bunch to vote on a bill sight-unseen AND on the weekend. A double screw job for "We The Pee-Pull". This bill NEEDS days of OPEN debate by the full house, ON camera, not "IN camera"!

"Congressional Martial Law" or no, were I there I would be leading a walkout on ANY unseen bill, and doing my best to deny them a quorum. Make the house leadership have to resort to Sgt. @ Arms, and such dragging Congressmen in for a vote, before the cameras.

The whole premise behind this a complete sellout, in the debt of night!
 

Publius

TB Fanatic
Do you think congress could turn on her! like someone standing up declare a vote of no confidents to remove her from position as speaker of the house or even impeach on the spot.
 

Grim

Inactive
Bump-This is important enough to bump back up. A vote before reading the bill, that is ridicules. See the link, and I think explanation by several members is correct. This is crazy.
 

SassyinAZ

Inactive
SassyInAz; Thanx a lot.

A House rule was the other possibility I wondered about, when I said, as I am not a big follower of that stuff. It's mostly designed to get rid of/hide/bury any kind of meaningful debate, so I have a natiural resentment.

This notion of members being left to discuss "talking point" as he said is flat criminal, IMO. And I notice the game is, or appears to be afoot to get this bunch to vote on a bill sight-unseen AND on the weekend. A double screw job for "We The Pee-Pull". This bill NEEDS days of OPEN debate by the full house, ON camera, not "IN camera"!

"Congressional Martial Law" or no, were I there I would be leading a walkout on ANY unseen bill, and doing my best to deny them a quorum. Make the house leadership have to resort to Sgt. @ Arms, and such dragging Congressmen in for a vote, before the cameras.

The whole premise behind this a complete sellout, in the debt of night!

AMEN from the back pew!
 
Top