Is there a reasonable consequence to be imposed if a law maker sponsors or votes ...

[44 AMP]

While the idea of shooting a few to encourage the others is emotionally satisfying, it is considered very bad form these days. Might even get you in trouble! (deliberate sarcasm )

The main reasons we keep having these kind of politicians in office are two. The first, and biggest one is simply the mathematics of democracy. If the majority of the people who actually VOTE don't vote for the other guy/gal then they get re-elected.

And, in many cases, if you DO get the bad one out of office, the replacement continues on with the same policies.

This is because of the failure of the second reason, which is, ALL the politicians need to know WHY candidate X LOST. (and it has to be the real reason, NOT one that the press claims is the reason.)

Like any other boycott, there has to be enough "harm" (loss of business, loss of public office etc.) to be important, AND the people need to know WHY they are losing business, or getting voted out.

They need to know that what they lost was because of their stand on gun rights, and not some other reason. It has to be CLEAR it was their stand on gun rights, and not their stand on any of the dozens of other issues they are involved in. Otherwise, their replacement could easily continue on that same path, thinking we are fine with it.

When the Democrats got the 94 AWB passed, they were pretty pleased. That fall, we voted out Democratic control of Congress for the first time in 40 years!!! They were stunned. They had seriously miscalculated the amount of time it takes gun owners in this country to forget a serious insult, and go back to political sleep. They passed a major gun control law the summer before a national election, which cost them many seats in Congress.

In PUBLIC they all claimed it was the Republican "Contract with America" (and the press still beats that particular drum to this day about that time), but in private, amongst themselves, they admitted and recognized that it was the gun control law (and its timing) that cost them their political power.

We have documented proof of that. They learned a sharp lesson, and they won't make that same mistake again. But, because the PUBLIC reason they lost wasn't gun control, the rest of the country was kept in the dark as to the real reason they lost.

Getting rid of the anti gun politicians AND getting the TRUTH why out to the public is not an easy task. In order to keep the next anti gun leaning politician on the "straight and narrow" both the politicians and the people have to know that it wasn't racial issues, gay rights, abortion, taxes, or any of the many other factors people are contentious about, that it was their stand on gun rights that cost them the office.

 

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by ATN082268
There probably should be but there isn't.....

Did you read what the Supreme Court told us in Tenney (and I quote above)? Are you sure you really understand it?

I understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN082268
...for those who don't like to work with using the U.S. Constitution

Like you, perhaps?

Legislative immunity was understood by the Founding Fathers and incorporated in the Constitution (Article I, Section 6):

Quote:
...The Senators and Representatives ... shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place....

I'm not sure jettisoning the rest of the U.S. Constitution with that clause is a persuasive argument. In any case, I have not suggested or implied there be no legislative immunity. What I have suggested is there not be complete legislative immunity. What I suggested in an earlier post in this thread:

"I'd be for something along the lines for punishing legislators voting for a bill which is unanimously (9-0) struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. I'd probably keep the punishments civil with incrementally increasing fines for each offense with a barred from government service punishment at the end for those who don't like to work with using the U.S. Constitution."

So legislators would still enjoy their usual immunity but with that exception. A case would have to filed, make it to the U.S. Supreme Court and then be struck down with a 9-0 ruling. Even after all of that they would still only be subject to a certain, uniform progression of punishment.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I understand it.....

No, you obviously don't.

... So legislators would still enjoy immunity but with that exception. A case would have to filed, make it to the U.S. Supreme Court and then be struck down with a 9-0 ruling. Even after all of that they would still only be subject to a certain, uniform progression of punishment.

Well you have a right to try to make it happen, so go for it. Make it happen. But it will never happen.

As the Heritage.org artilce points out:

The right of legislators to speak their minds with impunity while engaged in legislative work was acknowledged by the British Bill of Rights of 1689, written into the Articles of Confederation, and, after the Revolution, guaranteed by state constitutions as well as by the Speech and Debate Clause. James Wilson, who was one of the principal architects of the Constitution, explained the purpose of the clause as follows:

"In order to enable and encourage a representative of the publick to discharge his publick trust with firmness and success, it is indispensably necessary, that he should enjoy the fullest liberty of speech, and that he should be protected from the resentment of every one, however powerful, to whom the exercise of that liberty may occasion offence. Lecture on Law (1791)."​

And introducing a bill into the legislative process is a form of speech. Expressing and encouraging support for a bill is a form of speech. Voting on a bill is a form of speech. And the Founding Fathers in the Constitution you claim to revere saw fit to protect the freedom of members of Congress to do such things without any fear at all of personal liability (except not getting reelected). But you know better?

 

[Metal god]

I was speaking to you frank not helping the conversation along . Which is what this is , a conversation .

Let me ask this , what part of not being fired for a bad vote and not allowing you to run for public office again violates the prosecutorial immunity clause ? Nobody is being fired , under arrest or being fined . You just can't run again , call it a type of term limit . You are limited to making constitutional votes and not wasting tax payers money . Nobody is being prosecuted so the immunity part is not challenged . yes /no

 

[Frank Ettin]

....what part of not being fired for a bad vote and not allowing you to run for public office again violates the prosecutorial immunity clause ? Nobody is being fired , under arrest or being fined . You just can't run again , call it a type of term limit . You are limited to making constitutional votes and not wasting tax payers money . Nobody is being prosecuted so the immunity part is not challenged ...

And how does that work?

A bill to pass must be voted for by at least a majority of both houses of Congress. So if a bill is passed at least 51 Senators and 218 Representatives, 269 people, voted for it. Bills generally include multiple provisions and/or enact or amend several statutes.

So five years after the bill is signed into law, the Supreme Court rules that one of the statutes included in the bill is unconstitutional. You're going to fire 269 (at least) people? You're going to bar 269 (at least) people from public office? If they've gone on to other jobs? If they've left government service entirely?

And Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution doesn't just refer to prosecution. Let's look again at what is says (emphasis added):

...The Senators and Representatives ... shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place....

The job of a legislator, as do many jobs, requires one exercise judgment. In performing such a job one can exercise reasonable judgment and still ultimately be wrong. And while a law might ultimately be found unconstitutional there might well have been some excellent reasons why it should not have been found unconstitutional.

We have some 400+ years of wisdom telling us that for a representative democracy to properly work the appropriate remedy when a legislator isn't doing a satisfactory job to to not reelect him.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . Nobody is being prosecuted so the immunity part is not challenged . yes /no

No. Legislative immunity deals with much more than just "prosecution." It also affects civil suits, such as those brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

 

[ATN082268]

No, you obviously don't.

I do and you have yet to show how I didn't. Not understanding something and not agreeing on something are two different things.

And introducing a bill into the legislative process is a form of speech. Expressing and encouraging support for a bill is a form of speech. Voting on a bill is a form of speech. And the Founding Fathers in the Constitution you claim to revere saw fit to protect the freedom of members of Congress to do such things without any fear at all of personal liability (except not getting reelected). But you know better?

The U.S. Constitution has been Amended many times (around 27, I think) since the U.S. Constitution was passed.

What I have suggested is an extremely limited form of accountability for politicians. Something like speaking about a bill, for example, does not fall anywhere close to what I have proposed.

What I have proposed is as follows: First, a politician has to vote in favor of a bill and that bill has to pass. Second, then that bill has to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court and struck down by a 9-0 vote. Even then, the punishment is limited to what is prescribed in the Constitutional Amendment, such as uniform fines and, for repeat offenders, may ultimately include being banned from government service. If you think the politicians and/or the system is doing a swell job, then we can agree to disagree

 

[Frank Ettin]

....The U.S. Constitution has been Amended many times (around 27, I think) since the U.S. Constitution was passed.

What I have suggested is an extremely limited form of accountability for politicians. Something like speaking about a bill, for example, does not fall anywhere close to what I have proposed.

What I have proposed is as follows: First, a politician has to vote in favor of a bill and that bill has to pass. Second, then that bill has to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court and struck down by a 9-0 vote. Even then, the punishment is limited to what is prescribed in the Constitutional Amendment, such as uniform fines and, for repeat offenders, may ultimately include being banned from government service. If you think the politicians and/or the system is doing a swell job, then we can agree to disagree

You have every right to use the political process to try to amend the Constitution to provide as you've outlined. And I will bet you $50,000.00 (yes, I can afford that) that you can't make that happen while I still live. And you will not be able to make that happen because, in real world terms, it is a stunningly lousy idea and will be rejected.

First, the policy reasons for legislative immunity are sound and have long been understood. Second, what you propose is too cumbersome be ever be useful in real world terms.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've been following this and I disagree strongly with the thought police / Taliban like proposed limitations on the legislative process.

If you don't like your representative - use the normal voting processes, petitioning the government and the courts to produce the laws you want or revoke those you don't want.

To be blunt - some of you should be ashamed of yourselves for proposing such measures.

A representative, duly elected, should be free to propose any legislation, subject only to it being voted down or found unconstitutional.

 

[Metal god]

You know you'd think a moderator wouldn't exaggerate what is being proposed here . C-mon man the Taliban , "really" ! I must have missed the post that suggested the men be beheaded and the women go the rape camps . That exaggeration should constitute you being banned from this thread . You clearly are trying to start an argument rather then add to the conversation .

I also find it interesting some of you suggest we avail are selves of the process like voting . How ever when someone suggest just that like having a "vote" to put limitations on the the government. Thats asking to much and a waist of time . So which is it , wr should do and or try everything legally possible or not to have accountability ?

 

[Frank Ettin]

You know you'd think a moderator wouldn't exaggerate what is being proposed here . C-mon man the Taliban , "really" !.....

Glenn is correct, but you, and some others, just don't get it. There is a reason for legislative immunity.

But you don't like it now because of the side of the street you're on. If things were rolling the other way, and the guys on the other side were making "accountability " noises, you'd be singing a different tune.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I stand by what I said. The idea of such actions is no different from other tyrannies. Some countries decide who can run for office based on their ideologies. Punishing a person for trying to use the democratic process is an insult to freedom.

You did want jail time until talked out of it, it seems:

Jail time , law makers personally have to pay the court cost or paying a fine to some may seem reasonable but I've debated these things with others and it's been shown that they are not really reasonable .

So for example, a president in the past or two has suggested measures that would limit freedom of expression. They went nowhere and constitutional amendments were suggested that went nowhere.

So should that president have been forbidden to run for re-election. If gun bans for AWBs are found constitutional at the Supreme Court level, should those who proposed laws to remove such - jail time? Fines? Can't run again?

How many antigun folks make a constitutional case based on their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? If they carried the day - the progun legislators - Guantanamo?

So thought police, the Taliban, blasphemy laws, religious police - and this suggestion are cut from the same cloth.

There are many legislators who continue try to limit reproductive rights as determined by SCOTUS. Laws are passed and found unconstitutional. Off to jail, fines, can't run again, no cupcakes for these folks.

Note, we aren't discussing the right or wrong of the reproductive rights issue. That's not our thing. However, I take this an example of the process suggested.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Founding Fathers considered legislative immunity important enough the include in the Constitution. Some folks here want to revisit that.

Well Bloomberg wants to revisit the Second Amendment.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Folks want to limit the liberties of folks who disagree with them and cannot see that the strength of our country is that we do not punish those who disagree with us.

The doctrine of legislative immunity is an important part of the entire picture of not using the force of law to control ideas and proposals. The legislature is not free if members cannot express themselves or propose items.

The ballot box is the mechanism for change. The Constitution protects us from changes that would limit liberty.

It is stunning that folks who want the right to have lethal weapons to protect against tyranny want to use force of law to impose ideological controls over the legislature.

Liberty isn't just playing gun boy.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It strikes me that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That is certainly a truth.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Yes, it is. I can't even wrap my mind around the fact that there are folks who post in L&CR who would suggest something like this.

It strikes me that this idea grows out of another wrong-headed notion I've been arguing against for years now: that there is some way to decide ahead of time, before a court has ruled, whether any given law is constitutional or not. People love to argue that they're "not required to obey unconstitutional laws," for example. But a law isn't unconstitutional until it is ruled to be so by a court, and that means we are required to obey the law -- period. We don't get to decide which laws are constitutional and which we don't feel like following.

To penalize lawmakers for proposing or voting for a law that's later found unconstitutional would be no different from making something illegal and then enforcing that law retroactively, punishing people for something they did when it was legal. I doubt that anyone here thinks that would be a good idea -- at least I hope not.

It strikes me that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.

Yes, exactly.

 

[lefteye]

It strikes me that some folks aren't really opposed to tyranny. They're just opposed to other people's flavor of tyranny, and are perfectly okay with their own.

Excellent characterization! (No further explanation needed.)

 

[ATN082268]

To penalize lawmakers for proposing or voting for a law that's later found unconstitutional would be no different from making something illegal and then enforcing that law retroactively, punishing people for something they did when it was legal. I doubt that anyone here thinks that would be a good idea -- at least I hope not.

No, for at least a couple of reasons. First, the Constitutional Amendment in question (the one I proposed) would only apply to politicians after the Amendment was passed. It isn't retroactively applied, it is in full effect before any politician votes for a bill that it applies to. Secondly, it doesn't apply to politicians proposing a bill, only politicians voting for a bill that passes. If you are generally satisfied with the way politicians run this country, then so be it...

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'm more satisfied with the way things run now than with this idea.

How about we punish all those voters for stupid candidates for office who vote for bills you don't like?

How about we jail folks who vote for state referendums that are found later to be unconstitutional?

Let's put your butt on the line for the orange jumpsuit.