Republicans Trying to Start a Civil War in Texas

#51
#51
Vol8188 said:
“Will find a way to derail it”….is that how you (an attorney) believe the Supreme Court should work?
Click to expand...


Its the way it does. Its well established they they meet head on only that which they need to. Thays not unique to this group of justices. Its the way it always has been, as recognizing the need to be restrained and avoid needless meddling.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
It’s the way it does. Its well established they they meet head on only that which they need to. Thays not unique to this group of justices. It’s the way it always has been, as recognizing the need to be restrained and avoid needless meddling.
Click to expand...

Weird to back down from the question. After first pretending they lack integrity if they don’t seek a way to stop this (rather than simply enforcing the constitution), you’re now acting as if this isn’t the way it should work.

Would a judge with integrity not be the one who would rule based on the law rather than searching for ways to implement their own opinion as you’re suggesting?

lawgator1 said:
If they have the least bit of integrity, which is at this point debatable, the high Court will find a way to derail it.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush and LouderVol
#55
#55
Vol8188 said:
Weird to back down from the question. After first pretending they lack integrity if they don’t seek a way to stop this (rather than simply enforcing the constitution), you’re now acting as if this isn’t the way it should work.

Would a judge with integrity be the one who would rule based on the law rather than searching for ways to implement their own opinion as you’re suggesting?
Click to expand...


I'm saying they understand how dangerous a concept this is -- forcing other people to be in a particular place at a particular time for your own political purposes, on pain of arrest if they don't.

Its anathema to basic principles of liberty and the Constitution and there is no basis to override it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying they understand how dangerous a concept this is -- forcing other people to be in a particular place at a particular time for your own political purposes, on pain of arrest if they don't.

Its anathema to basic principles of liberty and the Constitution and there is no basis to override it.
Click to expand...

“Personal purposes”, you seem to be making things up. This is obviously not a “personal matter”.

They have liberty. They’re free to resign if they don’t want to do their job
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, SpaceCoastVol, UT_Dutchman and 1 other person
#58
#58
Vol8188 said:
“Personal purposes”, you seem to be making things up. This is obviously not a “personal matter”.

They have liberty. They’re free to resign if they don’t want to do their job
Click to expand...


Where does it say in any law that they are obliged to be there and provide a quorum ? That they surrender their constitutional rights when they take office ?

Hint: nothing says that because it isn't true and in fact would be unconstitutional if there was such a requirement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython
#59
#59
Vol8188 said:
Weird to back down from the question. After first pretending they lack integrity if they don’t seek a way to stop this (rather than simply enforcing the constitution), you’re now acting as if this isn’t the way it should work.

Would a judge with integrity not be the one who would rule based on the law rather than searching for ways to implement their own opinion as you’re suggesting?
Click to expand...
I haven’t looked at the details this time but if it’s like last time it’s a civil warrant and worthless outside of the state. And thus largely ceremonial as when they come back to the state they’ll be heading right to the state house.
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
Where does it say in any law that they are obliged to be there and provide a quorum ? That they surrender their constitutional rights when they take office ?

Hint: nothing says that because it isn't true and in fact would be unconstitutional if there was such a requirement.
Click to expand...

Article III section 10 of the Texas constitution explicitly provides the power of the House to compel its members into attendance
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, LibertyVol, UT_Dutchman and 4 others
#61
#61
Vol8188 said:
“Will find a way to derail it”….is that how you (an attorney) believe the Supreme Court should work?
Click to expand...
Personally, I love the implication that any ruling that goes against the oh so enlightening jurisprudence of LawGator is atomically indicative of a lack of integrity.
I wonder if anyone has informed John Roberts of his replacement as Chief Justice by lawgator?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol
#65
#65
Vol8188 said:
Article III section 10 of the Texas constitution explicitly provides the power of the House to compel its members into attendance
Click to expand...


We'll see if that holds up in contravention of the First and Fourth Amendments.
 
#66
#66
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying they understand how dangerous a concept this is -- forcing other people to be in a particular place at a particular time for your own political purposes, on pain of arrest if they don't.

Its anathema to basic principles of liberty and the Constitution and there is no basis to override it.
Click to expand...
I am betting that you would be singing from a different hymnal if California Republicans Feld the state to shut down the “deliberations” of the hair gel bots that comprise the California legislature. You would be crying havoc and calling for them to be arrested on the spot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BreatheUT
#67
#67
OrangeTsar said:
I am betting that you would be singing from a different hymnal if California Republicans Feld the state to shut down the “deliberations” of the hair gel bots that comprise the California legislature. You would be crying havoc and calling for them to be arrested on the spot.
Click to expand...


Nope. Absolutely not.
 
#69
#69
Vol8188 said:
Article III section 10 of the Texas constitution explicitly provides the power of the House to compel its members into attendance
Click to expand...


The only case I can find on this in a basic search is the state supreme court case, decided by Republican judges. I don't know if the issue has ever been litigated in federal court but I will check in the morning and report back.
 
#71
#71
lawgator1 said:
I'm saying they understand how dangerous a concept this is -- forcing other people to be in a particular place at a particular time for your own political purposes, on pain of arrest if they don't.

It’s anathema to basic principles of liberty and the Constitution and there is no basis to override it.
Click to expand...
Oath of office for Texas Legislature….
The oath of office for members of the Texas Legislature is as follows: "IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of [Office] of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."



Note: FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE.

Ie, show up and vote like your voters expected you to do.

Running to NYC to avoid votes in not “faithfully executing” now is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LibertyVol
#73
#73
OrangeTsar said:
Oath of office for Texas Legislature….
The oath of office for members of the Texas Legislature is as follows: "IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of [Office] of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."



Note: FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE OFFICE.

Ie, show up and vote like your voters expected you to do.

Running to NYC to avoid votes in not “faithfully executing” now is it?
Click to expand...


And the Constitution and laws of the United States. If the US Constitution is violated by a provision of the Texas constitution, either on its face or as applied, Texas loses.
 
#74
#74
lawgator1 said:
Where does it say in any law that they are obliged to be there and provide a quorum ? That they surrender their constitutional rights when they take office ?

Hint: nothing says that because it isn't true and in fact would be unconstitutional if there was such a requirement.
Click to expand...

lawgator1 said:
The only case I can find on this in a basic search is the state supreme court case, decided by Republican judges. I don't know if the issue has ever been litigated in federal court but I will check in the morning and report back.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, you were wrong?

Also how would this be remotely unconstitutional? If you’re a member of congress, do your job or resign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush, whodeycin85, hog88 and 1 other person
#75
#75
Vol8188 said:
Just to be clear, you were wrong?

Also how would this be remotely unconstitutional? If you’re a member of congress, do your job or resign.
Click to expand...


I said such a provision would in my view, especially if it led to physically taking people into custody, violate at least the First and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

I can't immediately find any federal case that addressed that and the Texas Supreme Court case would not be the arbiter of that.

As I say, I'll look tomorrow.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top