Posted on 12/16/2010 1:10:51 PM PST by SmithL
Gay rights lobbyists say they now have 61 Senate votes in hand to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on gays and lesbians in the military. Three Republicans are needed and at least that many have now made firm commitments to vote yes if a stand-alone repeal comes to the floor.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Scott Brown of Massachusetts have both said they are on board, joining Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. That's four Republicans, one more than needed, and two more are considered possibilities.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., said it's now squarely up to Senate majority leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to put repeal to a vote.
"The reality is we've got the votes," Lieberman said. "It's really up to Sen. Reid now."
Lieberman said repeal should be brought up after the spending bill to fund the government is resolved by Saturday, and before debate resumes on the START treaty, arguing that START can be passed next year, but repeal of the gay ban cannot.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Everyone knew coming in that one election would not fix what’s wrong in DC.
The fact that we have 650 new patriots in the state legislatures is where our immediate strength lies. Controlling 30 state legislatures is enough power to set dozens of brushfires that the fed doesn’t have the manpower or resources to control.
That’s where we can start serious fights we can win.
Yes that is the way it SHOULD work, we’ll see though.
That's a little harsh. Murkowski, Collins and Snowe are RATs as far as I'm concerned.
And, have always been RATS.
“The fact that we have 650 new patriots in the state legislatures is where our immediate strength lies. Controlling 30 state legislatures is enough power to set dozens of brushfires that the fed doesn’t have the manpower or resources to control.”
You’re right. What sort of things should the legislatures do? One that I think should absolutely be done is to pick up the balanced budget amendment where it stopped in the late 80’s. I think it was one or two states away from ratification via a Con-Con.
Lieberman is a decent man (I met him once), but he has no real relationship with the God he claims to be "observant" to.
He will sit around on the night of the Sabbath and not even turn on a light switch, (might be construed as "work"), but he will vote to open the floodgates of what that same God calls an "abomination" into the ranks of our military.
He strains at a gnat, and swallows a camel.
Yes, I think the GOP is playing chess with this repeal.
“Strange that an observant Jew, like Lieberman, who won’t even ride in a car or campaign on the Sabbath, feels he can champion homosexuality and God will give him a pass.”
Yeah, I guess he doesn’t accept the Law of Moses.
He is just pandering to ensure he doesn’t get beat in a primary again. What a putz.
lame duck sessions must be ended. the people voted against this.
Lieberman said repeal should be brought up after the spending bill to fund the government is resolved by Saturday, and before debate resumes on the START treaty, arguing that START can be passed next year, but repeal of the gay ban cannot.
I’m marking this because your question is a good one and deserves a reply.
“What sort of things should the legislatures do?”
Tomorrow...
Just shows how little Lieberman knows of "his own faith."
He may claim to be "conservative Jew" but his actions fly in the face of what "his faith" teaches that along with the protection of all innocent life (not only the born but the pre-born as well.)
He might just as well admit to being a Reformed Jew, they have not problem with both subjects, from what my Reformed Jewish friends tell me. In fact, one of my female Jewish friends serves on the board of Planned Parenthood!
“What sort of things should the legislatures do?”
I still need to study this more, so it’s coming off the top of head.
In about 1995, a federal court in Utah ruled that counties and tribes are sovereign entities and the federal government can’t force them to do the bidding of the federal government.
Before that we had the Sheriff Mack Supreme Court ruling that said the federal government cannot force a sheriff to implement Clinton’s antigun legislation.
Recently the federal court ruled in the Virginia case that obumacare is unconstitutional.
What two of these three cases have in common is that local legislatures and a state legislature first passed legislation saying, in essence, that they’re sovereign entities and as such, the federal government doesn’t have the authority to order them to carry out federal mandates.
The courts have agreed in all three cases that other governments, from local to state, are sovereign, and as such have the power to nullify the federal government decrees.
These cases, I believe, give states ammo to pass legislation defying various federal decrees and the courts will back them.
As I said, I need to understand this better to get a more clear picture for myself and others.
I hope this somewhat answers your question about what state legislatures should do.
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.