Skip to comments.Wisconsin Governor Has the Power to Replace the Vacant Democratic Legislators
Posted on 02/18/2011 2:47:36 PM PST by Nachum
The Democratic Legislators have vacated their posts and moved to another state, there is no question that the governor is well within his rights to call an election. God speed Wisconsin!
(Excerpt) Read more at bobbi85710.wordpress.com ...
I, would love to see him try to fire these Demohacks to watch Obama's head spin.
Corn in the popper!
emails are in order . let the governor know the people are behind him and to replace those derelicts.
Don’t think it works unless they actually resign or break a law and get thrown out. I’d like to think he can just do it, but it seems sort of vague.
I like this governor.
And with the union head willing to make concessions, you know where the public is standing on this story.
Oh, that *WOULD* be awesome to see.
Write a letter, certified mail, to him with the idea and the relevant Constitutional section.
That was fast!
Wisconsin Democrats could stay away for weeks
Friday, February 18, 2011 1:52:47 PM · 67 of 92
Uncle Miltie to Jean S
There must be a constitutional process for a Legislator unwilling to complete their term.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies
Sounds like this guy has a possible future running with Sarah Palin for POTUS and VP.
I guess the question becomes, at what point is a seat considered vacant.
Dang. Got to buy the “industrial size” drum of popcorn.
Please let this happen! It seems like the perfect time and the perfect opportunity to shove Obozo out the door.
Good Idea Ping.
He should just declare them mentally incompetent and replace them.
The governor has the authority to call an election for a vacancy but I don’t see that he has the authority to declare a seat vacant.
Did they steal a publicly owned vehicle and
drive it out of state? Are they using public funds
without authorization for the travel? Taking the
vehicle could be grand theft or better assessed
against all of them. Put out a warrant for their
arrest and ask I’LL to extradite them.
I’ll send him a $100 campaign donation if he’ll just try and fire these wussies...
1. Governor announces calmly that he will declare vacant the seat of any legislator whose absence from the floor plainly is voluntary / obstinate (as is provable these days by their public statements, Tweets, etc.) if the absence lasts 72 hours or more.
2. Wait the 72 hours.
3. If any Dems fail to appear on the floor in time, declare the seat vacant and schedule a special election for each. (This immediately whittles away the # of legislators required for a quorum, because it lowers the number “elected” (validly holding office).)
Ask IL to extradite them. Damned automatic
spelling “fixer” screwed up my post.
Um, I doubt that Scott will go there.
The Dems really booted it. To run away on the first little thing that didn’t appeal to them is causing them to be a laughingstock. There is much worse to come - what are they going to do - seek asylum in Canada?
They will come back sheepishly. They will learn, eventually, to take it. Just like the Repubs had to “take it” for years.
I think he should try it anyway. If he must, go to court and the election commission to show reasonable cause. See if the legislators show up to avoid court. See if they take any illegal donations to defend their seats.
The Rats would do it in a heart beat. Time to play it their way.
The “run to avoid a quorum” trick works if you can leave one person behind to force a roll call to check if a quorum is there. But what happens if the Republicans just don’t call a roll and assume that there are 20 Senators there and start voting on those things requiring a 3/5 quorum? Can they just deem there to be a quorum unless someone demands an actual roll call... but if there were a Dem there to do it they would have the 20 they need? What legal options do the Dems have if the Republicans just start voting things in 19-0 and “assume” that the Dem (there had to have been one somewhere) just abstained?
About the only way they could pull off “intolerable pressure” on one of those legislators would be a very backdoor means, using one of the more disreputable tricks involved with the drug war, asset forfeiture.
Simple put, since legislators cannot be arrested on State charges, or obliged to attend State court in civil actions, they have limited immunity.
However, because of drug war rules, property can be “arrested”, even if its owner is not charged with a crime. Any home, property, or vehicle of these legislators could be seized if so much as a minuscule amount of drugs were found in or on them—or are alleged to be by an anonymous informant.
Of course, if the legislator returns home promptly, it can all be cleared up quickly. But until then, their expensive sports car, for example, will be held in a police impound lot. Or if they live alone, their home can be secured by the police as a potential crime scene.
Once local or State police had done this, of course, they would have to contact the federal authorities, but that could take days or weeks.
That’s been my question. The dems are traveling on SOMEONE’S dime. If it’s on the taxpayers they are going to get slaughtered next election. My guess is the unions are paying, but that doesn’t look so good for the dems either.
[governor is well within his rights to call an election]
...at the same time run a full page ad in the paper needing teachers IMMEDIATELY.
I am sure to hear the weepy cry of baby democraps all the way down in South Texas if he does this. I want to see it happen, and to see the losers kicked out if they don’t want to be there.
Rum in the glass!
Darn. Trying to find the magnum size bottle of rum. Is it almost party time?
Each Rep and Senator has a place to sit in their respective chamber, that place is called a seat. The seat is vacated when you refuse to sit in it during session. One can argue a bunch of BS, but that’s what it means to vacate one’s seat. Let the courts decide what a vacated seat means. The American people know. My employees know what a happens when they vacate their seat.
I like mine with butter, please.
Here’s another solution: have one Republican officially change parties.
“The run to avoid a quorum trick works if you can leave one person behind to force a roll call to check if a quorum is there. But what happens if the Republicans just dont call a roll and assume that there are 20 Senators there...”
I LOVE IT. I can see it happening (in a loud, deep voice): “...and not hearing any objection, I DECLARE a quorum to be present.”
Brilliant, Genius, Simple..... I love it.
The seats aren't vacant.
The members are absent but the seat is vacant.
I would rather explore the right of the governor to withhold pay from them while they are absent.
They need 20 Senators, the fact that all absent are democrats
they phrase it in a way that could be confusing.
They need 20 warm bodies. Quorum doesn’t care about party affiliation.
Oh how I hope one of his advisors reads here. Wouldn’t it be lovely if he announced tomorrow that if they were not back in session by X date that a special eletion would be called to replace every one of them.... LOL
I wondered the same thing. When my State Senator (Texas) legged it to New Mexico a few years ago, they left one Dem behind to raise a point of order that there was not a quorum. In Texas, the Dems could leave one behind, and still deny a quorum. The Wisconsin Dems cannot. I suspect that they (1) hope the Republicans, in what used to be a "good government" State, are too fastidious to ram it through, (2) hope that the Wisconsin Courts will ignore the "enrolled bill rule" (which says a Court cannot judicially review whether a bill certified as passed by the Legislature, really was lawfully passed), and (3) hope that the Unions will appreciate the fact they stayed bought.
Vacant is the wrong word; “abandoned” makes it work. Failure to answer quorum calls may be the key.
"Inquiring minds are reading snips from a Letter from FDR Regarding Collective Bargaining of Public Unions written August 16, 1937.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.
The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees.
A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. "
FDR against strikes by public unions!!!!!! Take that libbies!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.