86 machine gun ban vote : Video page on 11 - Page 12

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 86 machine gun ban vote : Video page on 11 (Page 12 of 27)

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:00:04 PM EDT

[#1]

watching!

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:02:28 PM EDT

[#2]

Bump

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:04:09 PM EDT

[#3]

THANKS!!!! Watching now!

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:07:16 PM EDT

[#4]

Thanks AJAX22!

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:10:52 PM EDT

[#5]

Wow, its bedlam. What an absolute mess.

Charlie Rangel needed a boot up his ass for this over 20 years ago.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:12:27 PM EDT

[#6]

Tag for later..

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:15:10 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:17:50 PM EDT

[#8]

what a joke its like a circus watching that

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:18:17 PM EDT

[#9]

You might want to find out how you can get payed for this video by Youtube!

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:21:32 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:30:59 PM EDT

[#11]

So can anyone explain what this could all mean for us? Won't this just be ignored?

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:31:58 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
what a joke its like a circus watching that

no shit. it is a total fustercluck.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:33:10 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
So can anyone explain what this could all mean for us? Won't this just be ignored?

this has no legal value. It only has propaganda value for us where we can show our congressperson or Senator the travesty that happened and perhaps one of them will be willing to slip in a "922(o) is repealed" into one of the large must-pass omni-bus bills.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:35:10 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:36:18 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

"Let it go"

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:42:19 PM EDT

[#16]

However, there are some recorded votes in that video, what are those in relation to?

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:47:34 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Tag.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:49:10 PM EDT

[#18]

Where are our parli procedure gurus? Any recourse for the current House or once the la bill was signed it's irrelevant.?.?.?

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:50:24 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
However, there are some recorded votes in that video, what are those in relation to?

an earlier vote was a committe vote to get the Hughes amendment out of commitee IIRC. and later votes were on the entire bill after the Hughes amendment was inserted.

Marc did this edit quick and dirty, to get it up so to that we could see it right away. hopefully once other people have the entire DVD, some better editing, with explanations overlaid on the video can be done.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:51:10 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Where are our parli procedure gurus? Any recourse for the current House or once the la bill was signed it's irrelevant.?.?.?

pretty much so, whatever happens before the final vote should be fixed by the house. once they vote on the entire bill, it is basically over.

Posted: 1/24/2011 11:59:35 PM EDT

[#21]

They're all bastards, Rangel especially. Ignore who I don't want heard, acknowledge those I do.

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:22:40 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:22:52 AM EDT

[#23]

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:29:43 AM EDT

[#24]

I think the power of this is that it shows the legislation was "jammed down our throats", and does give provide some valid justification for trying again, ie attempt to repeal, on this issue.

However, realistically, getting rid of the MG ban is a political non starter, media would tilt the issue so far in the public perception that it would be political suicide to support.

Too many Fudds and sheeple that would never support evil MGs..."why just imagine if that crazy boy in Arizona had a machinegun... etc..."

<sigh>

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:33:16 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:34:22 AM EDT

[#26]

On ratedesi.com there is a video titled"Miscounted Vote In The House Of Representatives"

Cant link it from my cell.

Quoted:

Quoted:

Where are our parli procedure gurus? Any recourse for the current House or once the la bill was signed it's irrelevant.?.?.?

pretty much so, whatever happens before the final vote should be fixed by the house. once they vote on the entire bill, it is basically over.

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:37:45 AM EDT

[#27]

That clusterfuck is how Congress works?

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:47:22 AM EDT

[#28]

Charles Rangel is such a wonderful individual, isnt he?

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:48:40 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

Indeed, what I meant is that there is nothing unconstitutional about the purported snafu in the congress, since the billw as ultimately voted on in its entirely both by the house and senate.

There can be no question whatsoever that since the Hughes amendment was voted on by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president, that it is actually a law.

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:49:20 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

They won't touch this at all. The Court has ruled consistently that the "rules" are whatever the majority deems. That means, when a majority of each house votes up or down on a bill, however that final vote works is the "rule." So the amendment was added against the rules, so what? It was in the final bill, and both houses voted in favor of the final bill. That means the majority ratified the rule whereby the amendment was added the way it was.

It is a separation of powers issue.

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:52:21 AM EDT

[#31]

I don't like that Rangel fellow.

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:52:33 AM EDT

[#32]

Was this an issue in 86?

Quoted:

Quoted:

watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

Indeed, what I meant is that there is nothing unconstitutional about the purported snafu in the congress, since the billw as ultimately voted on in its entirely both by the house and senate.

There can be no question whatsoever that since the Hughes amendment was voted on by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president, that it is actually a law.

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:57:21 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

Indeed, what I meant is that there is nothing unconstitutional about the purported snafu in the congress, since the billw as ultimately voted on in its entirely both by the house and senate.

There can be no question whatsoever that since the Hughes amendment was voted on by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president, that it is actually a law.

That's kind of where my thinking was going with it... In a roundabout way, a judge is probably going to say "Well, if the senators who didn't like the way the bill went down, they could amend the next bill to strike down the earlier amendment if they had the votes and it bothered them that much!"

Posted: 1/25/2011 12:58:08 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

They won't touch this at all. The Court has ruled consistently that the "rules" are whatever the majority deems. That means, when a majority of each house votes up or down on a bill, however that final vote works is the "rule." So the amendment was added against the rules, so what? It was in the final bill, and both houses voted in favor of the final bill. That means the majority ratified the rule whereby the amendment was added the way it was.

It is a separation of powers issue.

I believe you are right.

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:01:42 AM EDT

[#35]

I hope Hughes dies of painful ass cancer.

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:02:16 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

They won't touch this at all. The Court has ruled consistently that the "rules" are whatever the majority deems. That means, when a majority of each house votes up or down on a bill, however that final vote works is the "rule." So the amendment was added against the rules, so what? It was in the final bill, and both houses voted in favor of the final bill. That means the majority ratified the rule whereby the amendment was added the way it was.

It is a separation of powers issue.

I believe you are right.

As outright corrupt as the process was, the people we really need to hold to account were the Congressmen that objected to the amendment who voted for this bill anyway. I know the politics of why Reagan signed this into law, but it is still somewhat disappointing.

I am excited for a real challenge to the substance of this law to make its way through the courts.

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:12:04 AM EDT

[#37]

After watching this clusterfuck and seeing how this should have never passed, if this is never challenged, what prevents it from happening again? I know we have the majority of the House now, but what about if that changes in a few years???

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:15:21 AM EDT

[#38]

Will you please link the video i refered to. I havent figured my phone out yet.

Quoted:

After watching this clusterfuck and seeing how this should have never passed, if this is never challenged, what prevents it from happening again? I know we have the majority of the House now, but what about if that changes in a few years???

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:31:12 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Will you please link the video i refered to. I havent figured my phone out yet.

Quoted:

After watching this clusterfuck and seeing how this should have never passed, if this is never challenged, what prevents it from happening again? I know we have the majority of the House now, but what about if that changes in a few years???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:32:54 AM EDT

[#40]

I have a question, on the very remote chance anyone on here has a firm knowledge of the procedures of the House.

My question is: what was the significance of the vote that lost 298-124?

Examining the congressional record on the link provided, it appears that that vote was not to adopt the Hughes Amendment, but instead a vote on a motion by Hughes that the "committee now rise."

Later on, the issue of the Hughes Amendment (quote- "this vote on machine gun bans") is actually put to a vote, and wins 268 to 136.

I don't have time just now to research this further, but I will later and make a definitive report.

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:39:54 AM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
I have a question, on the very remote chance anyone on here has a firm knowledge of the procedures of the House.

My question is: what was the significance of the vote that lost 298-124?

Examining the congressional record on the link provided, it appears that that vote was not to adopt the Hughes Amendment, but instead a vote on a motion by Hughes that the "committee now rise."

Later on, the issue of the Hughes Amendment (quote- "this vote on machine gun bans") is actually put to a vote, and wins 268 to 136.

I don't have time just now to research this further, but I will later and make a definitive report.

The roll call vote was to remove the Hughes Amendment from Committee to put it to the Floor to add or not. My understanding was that it was indeed removed from committee even after having lost. Then speaker asks for a yea and nay vote to add the amendment. He says the yeas have it, a roll call vote is requested, but ignored. The last vote was on whether or not to adopt the Volker (sp) Substitute (containing the amendment), which passed in the roll call vote. My understanding was that the Volker substitute was ready to be voted in without the amendment, and many Representatives did not realize the amendment had indeed been added, hence the adoption of the substitute even after the unclear yea/nay regarding adding the amendment.

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:43:03 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Was this an issue in 86?

Quoted:

Quoted:

watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

Indeed, what I meant is that there is nothing unconstitutional about the purported snafu in the congress, since the billw as ultimately voted on in its entirely both by the house and senate.

There can be no question whatsoever that since the Hughes amendment was voted on by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president, that it is actually a law.

I find this whole thing very very fishy, precisely because there was no issue in 1986.

The goings on of the congress get extremely high scrutiny, and it is absurd that none of the participants, their staffers, etc, would have taken issue with something being done in opposition to a recorded vote.

It looks like people have just confused a procedural vote with the vote to adopt the Hughes amendment.

Posted: 1/25/2011 1:53:33 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Was this an issue in 86?

Quoted:

Quoted:
watching it now

So, can someone explain for me, play by play, where the smoking gun is? I watched the whole thing-the action was moving pretty fast and to me all I saw was a contest over who made the loudest voice vote to a speaker with an agenda. How can a court go back to '86 and determine the intent of the legislators based on audio and vote counts if they conflict in one minute and don't the next?

I hope I'm missing something really obvious here and my unfamiliarity with the fine points of Order and the bill are preventing me from seeing something in plain sight.

it is at the 8:20 mark where the voice vote takes place. At the 8:40 mark, someone asks for recorded vote and Rangel smirks and ignores the request.

I guess the question then is: Will a court interfere with the internal workings of Congress? Getting a court to strike down a law because of a procedural technicality is going to be tough. Maybe not impossible, but tough. Rangle is a shitstain and knew what he was doing, but I'm not completely confident that a federal court will strike down a much loved machine gun ban because he was a little sneaky and underhanded so long ago. I'd love to be wrong but the cynic in me grew after SCOTUS refused recently to stop New Jersey from jailing gun owners and seizing their firearms for traveling thru the state.

Problem is, there's nothing unconstitutional about it, and separation of powers prevents the judiciary from meddling just because they feel like it.

To be clear, the law was unconstitutional-though that's a separate debate. The act of purposely sabotaging a vote isn't unconstitutional-but that's not what we are talking about here. The subject at hand is whether or not the Hughes Amendment banning civilian post 86 machineguns is actually law or not. My question is how far will a federal court be willing to stick it's nose into legislative proceedings to fix the problem....

Indeed, what I meant is that there is nothing unconstitutional about the purported snafu in the congress, since the billw as ultimately voted on in its entirely both by the house and senate.

There can be no question whatsoever that since the Hughes amendment was voted on by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president, that it is actually a law.

I find this whole thing very very fishy, precisely because there was no issue in 1986.

The goings on of the congress get extremely high scrutiny, and it is absurd that none of the participants, their staffers, etc, would have taken issue with something being done in opposition to a recorded vote.

It looks like people have just confused a procedural vote with the vote to adopt the Hughes amendment.

My understanding is that there was an issue in 1986, but that it was not really discussed by the media. And with no internet or talk radio, it died.

ETA: According to my roommate (who was a House page in 2002 and knows procedure well), as for adopting the amendment, there was only a yea or nay vote. The chair/speaker refused to acknowledge the request for a roll call vote. The ball, again, was dropped when the floor voted to adopt the Volker substitution.

Posted: 1/25/2011 2:02:48 AM EDT

[#44]

Holy shit... the Nays did not have it at all....

Posted: 1/25/2011 2:02:52 AM EDT

[#45]

Watching.

Posted: 1/25/2011 2:04:09 AM EDT

[#46]