There is no contradiction. The OP incorrectly characterizes the actions as illegal. An ordinary reader would read the OP and conclude, incorrectly, that the actions were illegal.
[/quote]
Ignoring that, how can you still argue that his actions were technically legal when I’ve demonstrated multiple times that HE CAN’T GAVEL A HEARING CLOSED WITHOUT A MOTION OR CALL FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT. What he did != what he can do.
[/QUOTE]
He can adjourn with the support of the majority. He had the support of the majority. There is no requirement that a voice vote/roll call vote/division of the assembly vote is required. The members supporting the ruling to adjourn stood and walked out with him. They were a majority of the committee.
Here, slanderer. And not a particularly inventive slanderer at that.
That’s all well and good, except that the question was about Padilla.
Except that there is no constraint on who the government can declare an “enemy combatant” and thereby prevent them from any recourse to the legal system. Of course, you know that too.
You are “technically correct” that no voice vote or division of the assembly is required. HOWEVER, you are still incorrect that the chairman can rule a hearing closed.
From the House Committee on Rules:
“Hearing Adjournment (Clause 1(a)(1)(b) of Rule XI) - It is not within the power of the Chair to unilaterally recess or adjourn a committee hearing or meeting. If an objection is heard, a non-debatable motion to adjourn must be entertained and passed in order to do so.”
No motion to adjourn was made. If you can find anywhere in the video where a motion to adjourn was made, I’ll concede the argument immediately. But you can’t find it, because no one made a motion. As Sensenbrenner said he was gaveling the hearing closed, three Representatives raised points of order. He ignored the points of order and left. You can’t do that.
What point of order could be raised? As you acknowledge yourself, the mtion to adjourn is a preferential, non-debatable motion. What possible point of order would have been relevant to the proceedings? No debate is permitted.
The motion to adjourn must be carried by majority vote. Those votes were cast by the majoriity of members getting up and leaving. The hearing ended with adjournment not by unanimous consent, but with a motion to adjourn by the chair, and supported by a majority of members present and voting.
Was each step of this spelled out precisely? Did the chair explicitly state, “I am now making a motion to adjourn. This is a preferential, non-debatable motion, it does not require a second, and it is in order.”
No.
But he clearly had the support of a majority of the members. There is no rule requiring he obtain that support by voice or other enumerative vote, as you acknowledge. The chair may, if he wishes, poll the assembly by peering into their eyes and discerning whther or not the they support a motion, subject, of course, to a motion to appeal the decision of the chair.
Really? The Rule states “a non-debatable motion to adjourn must be entertained and passed.” Within context, why would that not mean a motion, entertainment, and passing within the general standards of order?
Search the thread for “power”. You’ll get two pages worth of results. Look for posts made by me. There are maybe five or six posts. None of them say what he claims.
Looks like you joined the thread late. Please take a few minutes to catch up. The short version is that, if an administration asks for increased extraordinary powers without effective oversight by the legislative and especially judicial branches, a further change to the structure of checks and balances, its actions in the use of its already-granted extraordinary powers are central to the judgment of its fitness to use more of them.
It’s always been that people who know they’re in the wrong try to divert the discussion away from the topic. Thanks for yet another example, although you have a long way to go to catch up with Bricker.
Well, the actual Patriot Act isn’t a hypothetical, it’s current law up for an extension. Seems to me that if we were going to debate how the administration were to treat the extension, we’d look at how they’d prosecuted the existing law.
Unless, of course, such a tactic wouldn’t provide sufficient rhetorical examples - then I might be tempted to look further afield, to subjects that have nothing at all to do with this law, but touch on hot buttons of the age. And what fits this bill better than Gitmo, right now?
The fact that the law and procedures allowing for detention in Gitmo (and execution of prisoners there, if we were inclined to do so) was set before most members of Congress or this administration were even born, and while a Democrat was in the White House - why, that’s just a fact conveniently ignored despite being mentioned by both Bricker in passing and me in detail.
If it is so terribly unjust that those prisoners are there, then isn’t the fact that we executed those Nazis sixty years ago for the same damn thing equally wrong or worse? And shouldn’t you be dragging the New Deal across the coals for its human rights record right now?
Bricker, Section 412 of the Patriot Act authorizes the detention of aliens on suspicion of engaging in terrorism. I’m sure you’re more familiar with the act than I, but it seems pretty clear to me that a discussion of how the government has handled the indefinite detention of foreigners is clearly relevant to the Patriot Act. I don’t see how you could argue otherwise, without being willfully obtuse.
Twice Bricker passed up a chance to answer my question about whether he was actually a witness to Rep. Sensenbrenner’s disgraceful behavior. I cannot imagine that he would still be defending it if he had actually seen it. As an attorney, Bricker can be expected to be a stickler for technicalities. But the man is not a fool.
What about you, Mr. Moto? Have you seen all of the Committee hearing in question?
If so, which questions could the “liberals” not answer? Which majority members asked the questions? How do you know the witnesses were liberals? Was it because some were from organizations in support of human rights? Do you assume that those who support human rights are opposed to the Patriot Act? If so, why?
A corollary to the point about how people act when they’re wrong is that sometimes, instead of attempting to divert the subject entirely, they’ll simply try to redefine it on narrow enough grounds that they feel safer.
One version of that tactic is to attempt to draw false distinctions, as in the one illustrated here between the administration’s treatment of people inside the US itself and people under its unfettered control.
You’re referring to the Geneva Conventions, I trust? What, you aren’t? Why not?
We don’t know what those people in Gitmo are there for. Bush refuses to say, or even to allow anyone in to ask. Your claim that they did what the Nazis did has no foundation - speaking of “rhetorical examples”, not to mention Godwin.
Total non sequitur - a less-respectable version of attempting to divert the subject.
You sure he had the support of the majority? Based on the video and the transcript of the hearing (which I am sadly unable to link to,) the Republicans were the minority in terms of attendance, and I see no evidence that enough of the Democrats in attendance left following his action to support the claim that he had a majority of the members in agreement.
I would also say that the attempts by multiple members of the committee to get Rep. Sensenbrenner’s recognition constitute objection to his motion. I can’t say for sure because he ignored those attempts.