Conquer Club

Wouldn't you know it, my state's at it again!

http://eclectablog.com/2012/04/michigan ... ffect.html

Since January 2011, 566 bills have been signed into law passed by the House. Of those, 546 of them, 96.5% were passed under “immediate effect”

This is all explained in the video on the page, but I'll type out a quick synopsis here:

Michigan Republican lawmakers have been using a State Constitution provision which allows laws to be put into effect immediately instead of waiting 90 days after the last Session of Congress as normal procedure is for a Bill. For Immediate Effect to be issued, there needs to be a 2/3 house vote in the Michigan House of Representatives. For many of these bills passed, Democrats are saying that they stayed on party lines and did not vote for immediate effect on almost, if not all of the bills, and that the Republicans have lied about having 2/3 vote while Republican House Speaker has signed the Bills into law under the immediate effect provision.

Questions? Watch the video first. If what's being reported is true, this is a HUGE scandal for the state, and will probably secure Rick Snyder losing the next Governor election.

-rd

Has Michigan had a Republican majority for the entire duration of the alleged "immediate effect" legislative passing scandal (or however we shall call it)?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Has Michigan had a Republican majority for the entire duration of the alleged "immediate effect" legislative passing scandal (or however we shall call it)?

We've had a Republican majority for a couple years now IIRC, so yes.

Edit: Forgot to mention, Gov Snyder has been in for over a year now, and previous Governor Jennifer Granholm was a Democrat. I'm not familiar with the history of the House.

-rd

Shouldn't the votes cast by each lawmaker be public knowledge or are the votes cast in secret?

I mean, one should be able to look at the process of any law passed and see exactly who did and who did not vote for said law, right? And then easily determine if any particular laws had the required 2/3 majority for immediate effect. Right? Or that's not how they do it in Michigan?

Seems to be that laws being passed by lawmakers the public should have access to exactly how their representatives voted on each issue. There shouldn't be any secret vote on laws by lawmakers at all. That's how voters can evaluate representatives stances on things. If a representative campaigns on X side of an issue, the voter should be able to refer to that candidates voting record to see if his actions jive with his rhetoric.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Has Michigan had a Republican majority for the entire duration of the alleged "immediate effect" legislative passing scandal (or however we shall call it)?

We've had a Republican majority for a couple years now IIRC, so yes.

Edit: Forgot to mention, Gov Snyder has been in for over a year now, and previous Governor Jennifer Granholm was a Democrat. I'm not familiar with the history of the House.

-rd

How about the 30 years before that?

patches70 wrote:Shouldn't the votes cast by each lawmaker be public knowledge or are the votes cast in secret?

I mean, one should be able to look at the process of any law passed and see exactly who did and who did not vote for said law, right? And then easily determine if any particular laws had the required 2/3 majority for immediate effect. Right? Or that's not how they do it in Michigan?

Seems to be that laws being passed by lawmakers the public should have access to exactly how their representatives voted on each issue. There shouldn't be any secret vote on laws by lawmakers at all. That's how voters can evaluate representatives stances on things. If a representative campaigns on X side of an issue, the voter should be able to refer to that candidates voting record to see if his actions jive with his rhetoric.

Start that video at around 12:00 minutes. There's a video clip of the votes being counted at around 14:00.

-rd

Phatscotty wrote:
How about the 30 years before that?

...what does that have to do with the present?

-rd

WAT (@Phatscotty)




Anyway, I wonder if other legislative bodies do this... good post, rds!

rdsrds2120 wrote:Start that video at around 12:00 minutes. There's a video clip of the votes being counted at around 14:00.

-rd

Awww man, I gotta sit through that hag Maddow blabbering? Ugggg, <sigh> fine. I'll suffer through it and get back to this thread.

Thank you sir.

Well, I watched the video. Looks bad certainly, but there was one thing I don't quite understand.

The hag went on about the emergency managers law that went into immediate effect. Now this is her quote mind you-

Maddow wrote:And if that radical, radical law had passed under regular rules, if it hadn’t been put into immediate effect, if they couldn’t get a 2/3 super-majority to put it into effect that day when Governor Snyder signed it, then that radical law would only just now be taking effect

From April 5, 2012. Pay attention to the date now, that if the law hadn't been signed under "immediate effect" it would only be taking effect right about now.

Now look at this-

Maddow wrote:They passed it on March 15th last year, the governor signed it, and it took effect right then

Now if laws that don't have the required number of votes for "immediate effect" then the laws come into effect in 90 days.

That puts the law into effect in June 15, 2011, nearly nine months ago.

Also left out of Maddow's report (unless I just missed it), in regards to that particular law, the governor of Michigan requested in August, 2011 that the law be reviewed by the Michigan Supreme Court. To quickly resolve the lawsuits conflict of interest issues and the unconstitutionality under Michigan's constitution. To resolve the matter quickly.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/M ... ndum_(2012)

Regardless of those seeming errors on Maddow's part, it is clear from the vote record that the law did not have the required 2/3 vote for immediate effect.

I have to wonder, how is it that it took some 500+ laws going this way before anyone spoke up at all?

The Michigan lawmakers do appear to be doing some shady things to say the least. And of note that they are all quite incompetent as well.
Go figure.

Anyway, good OP sir. It seems it should be a fairly easy matter to confirm each and every law passed to immediate effect and find out definitively how many of the 96.5% didn't have the required votes and that each and every one of those laws should be immediately struck down regardless of the merits of the laws and have the legislature redo the whole process, but do it right.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
How about the 30 years before that?

...what does that have to do with the present?

-rd

Michigan is a wasteland for Democrat policies. Democrats have been in charge, especially in Detroit, for the last 30 years. They drove it right into the ground.

Glad to hear your state is trying something different.

patches70 wrote:Well, I watched the video. Looks bad certainly, but there was one thing I don't quite understand.

The hag went on about the emergency managers law that went into immediate effect.

Hag, really?

patches70 wrote:Well, I watched the video. Looks bad certainly, but there was one thing I don't quite understand.

The hag went on about the emergency managers law that went into immediate effect. Now this is her quote mind you-

Maddow wrote:And if that radical, radical law had passed under regular rules, if it hadn’t been put into immediate effect, if they couldn’t get a 2/3 super-majority to put it into effect that day when Governor Snyder signed it, then that radical law would only just now be taking effect

From April 5, 2012. Pay attention to the date now, that if the law hadn't been signed under "immediate effect" it would only be taking effect right about now.

Now look at this-

Maddow wrote:They passed it on March 15th last year, the governor signed it, and it took effect right then

Now if laws that don't have the required number of votes for "immediate effect" then the laws come into effect in 90 days.

That puts the law into effect in June 15, 2011, nearly nine months ago.

You misunderstand the normal process for a law here. The law doesn't get put into effect until 90 days after the Congressional session, which means, after the end of the year after that Session of Congress is over. 90 days is 3 months, That leads to about March 1st being the absolute earliest something could be put into effect, but there's usually a small time where things are being appropriated or w/e, and things usually take a visible effect in April.

Also left out of Maddow's report (unless I just missed it), in regards to that particular law, the governor of Michigan requested in August, 2011 that the law be reviewed by the Michigan Supreme Court. To quickly resolve the lawsuits conflict of interest issues and the unconstitutionality under Michigan's constitution. To resolve the matter quickly.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/M ... ndum_(2012)

Regardless of those seeming errors on Maddow's part, it is clear from the vote record that the law did not have the required 2/3 vote for immediate effect.

I have to wonder, how is it that it took some 500+ laws going this way before anyone spoke up at all?

The Michigan lawmakers do appear to be doing some shady things to say the least. And of note that they are all quite incompetent as well.
Go figure.

Anyway, good OP sir. It seems it should be a fairly easy matter to confirm each and every law passed to immediate effect and find out definitively how many of the 96.5% didn't have the required votes and that each and every one of those laws should be immediately struck down regardless of the merits of the laws and have the legislature redo the whole process, but do it right.

I agree.

-rd

Phatscotty wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
How about the 30 years before that?

...what does that have to do with the present?

-rd

Michigan is a wasteland for Democrat policies. Democrats have been in charge, especially in Detroit, for the last 30 years. They drove it right into the ground.

That may well be so, sir. But in no way could that justify the violation of Michigan's constitution by her own lawmakers, regardless of who ran the state into the ground and turned it into a bankrupt wasteland. Rules are rules, if the lawmakers can't follow their own rules, why should we follow any rules they impose upon us?
Regardless of party.

One cannot expect citizens to respect the law if the very government representatives won't respect it....

patches70 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
How about the 30 years before that?

...what does that have to do with the present?

-rd

Michigan is a wasteland for Democrat policies. Democrats have been in charge, especially in Detroit, for the last 30 years. They drove it right into the ground.

That may well be so, sir. But in no way could that justify the violation of Michigan's constitution by her own lawmakers, regardless of who ran the state into the ground and turned it into a bankrupt wasteland. Rules are rules, if the lawmakers can't follow their own rules, why should we follow any rules they impose upon us?
Regardless of party.

One cannot expect citizens to respect the law if the very government representatives won't respect it....

Okay I'm watching your video now, and then I will spend 3 weeks trying to filter out all the Maddow BS.

What were the changes to the Constitution in the glorious 60's?

Why would you want to stick to the rules that turned your state into the worst in the country? Whatever the rules used to be that messed your state up so bad, I hope you guys change them.

rdsrds2120 wrote:
You misunderstand the normal process for a law here. The law doesn't get put into effect until 90 days after the Congressional session, which means, after the end of the year after that Session of Congress is over. 90 days is 3 months, That leads to about March 1st being the absolute earliest something could be put into effect, but there's usually a small time where things are being appropriated or w/e, and things usually take a visible effect in April.

Aww, ok then, I see now. Very well then. I think it's time for you Michiganites to grab up the pitchforks and torches. Heat up the tar and gather the feathers.

Good luck with all that, sir. I'm a rooting for ya over that unconstitutional BS.

Phatscotty wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
How about the 30 years before that?

...what does that have to do with the present?

-rd

Michigan is a wasteland for Democrat policies. Democrats have been in charge, especially in Detroit, for the last 30 years. They drove it right into the ground.

Glad to hear your state is trying something different.

So, I post a thread about some Republicans in the House of Representatives doing something illegal, and instead comment about what they're doing, you attack what Democrats may or may not have done in the past 30 years.

This is when I know to stop replying to you. If you want to say something more than 40% on topic, be my guest.

-rd

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:Well, I watched the video. Looks bad certainly, but there was one thing I don't quite understand.

The hag went on about the emergency managers law that went into immediate effect.

Hag, really?

Oh God yes. You should see her without the makeup. <shivers>

She's a media personality. I can have my own opinions of her if I so choose and make comedic observations. It's not anything to you at all. Please stay on topic and comment on the issue RD brought up. You don't have to refer to Maddow as a hag if you don't want to.

Phatscotty wrote:Okay I'm watching your video now, and then I will spend 3 weeks trying to filter out all the Maddow BS.

Yeah, she is annoying. But do try to suffer through it. If I could do it, so can you.

Phatscotty wrote:What were the changes to the Constitution in the glorious 60's?

I don't know, that is a bit before my time. I did however, see the speaker push through an immediate effect clause without bothering to see if he had the required 2/3 vote, which current rules call for. Again, why pay attention to such a thing as a constitution if the lawmakers won't abide by it? Why should I?

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
How about the 30 years before that?

...what does that have to do with the present?

-rd

Michigan is a wasteland for Democrat policies. Democrats have been in charge, especially in Detroit, for the last 30 years. They drove it right into the ground.

Glad to hear your state is trying something different.

So, I post a thread about some Republicans in the House of Representatives doing something illegal, and instead comment about what they're doing, you attack what Democrats may or may not have done in the past 30 years.

This is when I know to stop replying to you. If you want to say something more than 40% on topic, be my guest.

-rd

Well, I think I know exactly what is going on here, but I will finish watching the video before I continue further.

What the Democrats tragic policies have done over the last 30 years has everything to do with the changes to those tragic policies.

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:Well, I watched the video. Looks bad certainly, but there was one thing I don't quite understand.

The hag went on about the emergency managers law that went into immediate effect.

Hag, really?

Oh God yes. You should see her without the makeup. <shivers>

She's a media personality. I can have my own opinions of her if I so choose and make comedic observations. It's not anything to you at all. Please stay on topic and comment on the issue RD brought up. You don't have to refer to Maddow as a hag if you don't want to.

It's all good P. I watch Maddow everynight and usually watch MSNBC all day. I'm pretty sure I see what your point is, but there is an ocean of context missing (as usual)

Phatscotty wrote:
It's all good P. I watch Maddow everynight and usually watch MSNBC all day. I'm pretty sure I see what your point is, but there is an ocean of context missing (as usual)

You are a better man than I. She grates on me.

I don't defend past democrat policies or assign blame to Michigan's (and Detroit's) woes. I find no pleasure in my fellow citizens plight.
Rather, I'd insist upon those in power, regardless of which party they be affiliated, to follow the rules as if they would follow the commands of God himself should he appear before them and so order.

It is this very type of duplicity perpetrated by too many from both parties that erode respect for the Rule of Law which is the foundation of our Republic. Anything that does that slowly and surely destroys the very nation we live. That is unacceptable regardless of what party is doing it. That's my position.

Peace sir.

patches70 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

patches70 wrote:Well, I watched the video. Looks bad certainly, but there was one thing I don't quite understand.

The hag went on about the emergency managers law that went into immediate effect.

Hag, really?

Oh God yes. You should see her without the makeup. <shivers>

She's a media personality. I can have my own opinions of her if I so choose and make comedic observations. It's not anything to you at all. Please stay on topic and comment on the issue RD brought up. You don't have to refer to Maddow as a hag if you don't want to.

If you had comedic observations, perhaps. Alas, you simply called her a hag.

patches70 wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:
It's all good P. I watch Maddow everynight and usually watch MSNBC all day. I'm pretty sure I see what your point is, but there is an ocean of context missing (as usual)

You are a better man than I. She grates on me.

I don't defend past democrat policies or assign blame to Michigan's (and Detroit's) woes. I find no pleasure in my fellow citizens plight.
Rather, I'd insist upon those in power, regardless of which party they be affiliated, to follow the rules as if they would follow the commands of God himself should he appear before them and so order.

It is this very type of duplicity perpetrated by too many from both parties that erode respect for the Rule of Law which is the foundation of our Republic. Anything that does that slowly and surely destroys the very nation we live. That is unacceptable regardless of what party is doing it. That's my position.

Peace sir.

Yeah okay I understand. I just want to make a few comments, and then I think at least for myself, I need a few things straightened out.

#1 That entire story wreaks of politics.
#2 What is radical to Rachel Maddow is radical to about 7.5 % of the population
#3 a few key pieces of information are based on "what the Democrats said"
#4 This reminds me of what is going on in Wisconsin, and Indiana, and Minnesota etc (not that far, but similar)
#5 you cant even see how many people raised their hands for the vote.
#6 This look like a very mild version of "Deem and Pass" (Obamacare)

Now, those are not major points, just some things I picked out

For the questions, I need to know...

First and foremost, Is there only one side to this story? (the democrat/maddow side?)

#1 How is Michigan's debt? Have they run out of money?
#2 Is this "immediate" thingy legal, or illegal?
#3 Is there an emergency, or is there not?
#4 It sounds to me like when they changed the Constitution in the 60's, they added the safeguard for laws to take a long time to change so they could possibly make sure they were never changed?
#5 I'm confused about why there is such confusion on whether they have the super majority or they don't?
#6 Did the Republicans run on these issues to use this immediate thingy?
#7 What are the specific problems that the Republicans are addressing (right or wrong)
#8 Is this something Democrats did you Republicans in the past? like a revenge thing?

I have more but we can get into them a few posts down the road.

If we can discuss these issues, I think we can begin to get into this further.

Snyder has been in office over a year now; Michigan went from a 1.5 billion budget deficit to a 450 million dollar surplus under his leadership; unemployment went from 11% to 9% with job creation still rising-this is something we haven't seen in a long time here. Although I don't agree with ALOT of snyders policies, he's brought a surplus from an inherited debt, unemployment has lowered and job creation is finally strong here.

Detroit is another story. The corruption in city government, inept leaders and people leaving that garbage dump to raise their families in a better, safer atmosphere are the problems. To fix this issue, it's being done on the backs of city workers, which isn't enough. Detroit clearly needs and efm as they do not know how to fix "their" problems.