Walter Von Moo Moo Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) Says quorum requirements for passing the federal budget were not met. Proxy voting unconstitutional in his opinion. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-attorney-general-sues-biden-admin-claims-1-7t-budget-bill-stunning-violation-constitution Edited February 17, 2023 by Walter Von Moo Moo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Toulon Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_annoying_one Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Ok. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Von Moo Moo Posted February 17, 2023 Author Share Posted February 17, 2023 51 minutes ago, André Toulon said: I take it you don't care about whether our government follows the Constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Toulon Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 10 minutes ago, Walter Von Moo Moo said: I take it you don't care about whether our government follows the Constitution. I take it you've never read it 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Von Moo Moo Posted February 17, 2023 Author Share Posted February 17, 2023 6 minutes ago, André Toulon said: I take it you've never read it Am I supposed to believe you or an attorney general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
André Toulon Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Just now, Walter Von Moo Moo said: Am I supposed to believe you or an attorney general? Idc who you believe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PenguinBoss Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 I probably believe Buddy over a Texan AG. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sieg67 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 (edited) You mean this guy?https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/ken-paxton-texas-settlement/index.html Voting by proxy was allowed at the time due to COVID 19. Wow. Much news. So corruption. Edited February 17, 2023 by Sieg67 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katt_goddess Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Ken Paxton is running for his life right now due to charges of corruption and abusing his position and will say and do anything to feed stupid people anything that will keep them from reading about how he is actually being investigated or will think the investigation is a response to his most recent shenanigans as opposed to the other way around. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Von Moo Moo Posted February 18, 2023 Author Share Posted February 18, 2023 2 hours ago, Sieg67 said: You mean this guy?https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/ken-paxton-texas-settlement/index.html Voting by proxy was allowed at the time due to COVID 19. Wow. Much news. So corruption. By whose authority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sieg67 Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 3 minutes ago, Walter Von Moo Moo said: By whose authority? Speaker of the house. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Von Moo Moo Posted February 18, 2023 Author Share Posted February 18, 2023 Just now, Sieg67 said: Speaker of the house. Does the speaker have the authority to unilaterally change the text of the Constitution, or make special exceptions to it? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sieg67 Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Walter Von Moo Moo said: Does the speaker have the authority to unilaterally change the text of the Constitution, or make special exceptions to it? No. They voted. It was fair. There was a pandemic. There was even a vote to allow proxies and 77% of Republicans used that option. Who the fuck cares? https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/micky-wootten/77-house-republicans-voted-proxy-during-117th-congress Edited February 18, 2023 by Sieg67 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter Von Moo Moo Posted February 18, 2023 Author Share Posted February 18, 2023 34 minutes ago, Sieg67 said: They voted. It was fair. There was a pandemic. There was even a vote to allow proxies and 77% of Republicans used that option. Who the fuck cares? https://www.cnsnews.com/article/washington/micky-wootten/77-house-republicans-voted-proxy-during-117th-congress I don't care if all the Republicans and Santa Clause voted by proxy. The speaker didn't have the authority to host a vote without quorum. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raptorpat Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Each chamber of Congress, as a separate and independent branch of government, has wide latitude to set its own rules and court are loathe to get involved. In this instance, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state members must be present in the room to constitute a quorum, and the emergency resolution stated that "any Member whose vote is cast or whose presence is recorded by a designated proxy under this resolution shall be counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum under the rules of the House." No legitimate court is going to retroactively throw that out. Additionally, congressional business is conducted all the time without a quorum so if we're following the logic, it would have to invalidate probably 200 years' worth of congressional actions. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 7 hours ago, PenguinBoss said: I probably believe Buddy over a Texan AG. I know I believe Buddy over the Texas Attorney General. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_annoying_one Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Buddy 4 Prez! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sieg67 Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 (edited) 7 hours ago, Raptorpat said: Each chamber of Congress, as a separate and independent branch of government, has wide latitude to set its own rules and court are loathe to get involved. In this instance, the Constitution doesn't explicitly state members must be present in the room to constitute a quorum, and the emergency resolution stated that "any Member whose vote is cast or whose presence is recorded by a designated proxy under this resolution shall be counted for the purpose of establishing a quorum under the rules of the House." No legitimate court is going to retroactively throw that out. Additionally, congressional business is conducted all the time without a quorum so if we're following the logic, it would have to invalidate probably 200 years' worth of congressional actions. Also Kevin McCarthy already tried suing for this and the case was rejected. Edited February 18, 2023 by Sieg67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.