LFCFan
*Insert nerd wings here*
Whoa, whoa...are you telling me that you guys didn't have to do your own laundry down at AOCS?
I prefer a "literal volunteer force" myself.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Shutdown
- Thread starter cinnabon
- Start date
Whoa, whoa...are you telling me that you guys didn't have to do your own laundry down at AOCS?
I prefer a "literal volunteer force" myself.
alaurin
All day, every day!
It was proposed, put on the ballot and passed overwhelmingly in CA. Then the next year, they failed to meet deadline and their paychecks were not issued after deadline. They got upset and sued the State Controller because they said "You shouldn't be allowed to do that." more info if you were interested: http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2012/01/lawsuit-over-pay-how-legislators-can-lose-even-if-they-win/
Of course, something like that would probably never pass on the federal level even though the legislators probably make multiples in one day with political contributions and side businesses what they make in a year for their "civil service job."
"Ray's Laundry" truck was parked outside the battalions every evening…throw your bag his way on the way to chow…pick up your last stuff on the march back. He kept your line of credit until you could pay. Pretty sweet...
My God, man, this was an "Officer Candidate" Course of Instruction…not the Middle Ages!
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
I was thinking about this on a run the other day...
Would it be within the President's power to sign an executive order the FBI/National Guard/Whatever (you know, those guys who are about to be pissed for not having a paycheck) to confine Congressmen to Congress and order the Treasury to suspend their pay until they duke out a budget?
Because if so...why isn't he? Why are Americans living on edge year after year when the annual fiscal budget smacks 535 people upside the head in September like it was a fucking surprise because they want to use the deadline to play politics? It's their specific duty to pass a budget. I don't see how they get away with this crap, and I certainly don't see why this couldn't have been sorted out like, I don't know, any time in the last 11 months?
Even if they bitch and whine about it...by the time they pass laws/whatever to address how draconian Obama was to do that, the budget will be balanced and he'll be headed out of office.
The poor candidate who got seen about to do his and his roommate's laundry in those small ass washing machines became an unpaid version of Ray's Laundry.
Then somehow uniforms didn't get clean when you have 10 people's laundry in one tiny machine, and I don't know why but apparently people also like to take someone else's stamped, swampy underwear.
They make $174,000/year, not including perks and benefits. That, in my opinion, is 200 (Senators) to 250% (Representatives) more than they ought to make.
A far cry from the per diem they made when the country was first formed.
Last edited:
Absolutely not! They are equal branches of government. The Executive branch has no control over the Legislative branch.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Each branch has mechanisms to ensure the other ones do their job. The legislative branch can impeach and remove the President if he fails to execute the law; why can't the President hold Congressmen accountable for failing to do their duties under the law?
EDIT: Looks like he has that power specifically in the Constitution and it has been used in the past (sort of, just not the suspending pay part):
Article II, Section 3, Clause 3: Calling Congress into extraordinary session; adjourning Congress
The President may call extraordinary sessions of one or both Houses of Congress. If the two Houses cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the President may adjourn both Houses to such a time as befits the circumstances.
The last time this power was exercised was in 1948, when President Harry S Truman called a special session of Congress. That was the twenty-seventh time in American history that a president convened such a session
Last edited:
Agreed. The President issues executive orders all the time. And it's up to the Judicial Branch to keep those in check, and reverse them if it's determined they're unconstitutional.
That is not even in the same ballpark as using force to confine them to their offices until they pass a budget. Calling a special session doesn't even mean everyone is required to show up. They aren't even required to show up during regular sessions. So he could call a session, but that's it. He can't require individuals to participate, set the agenda, or do anything else to steer them (beyond what he can typically do, which is just closed door, man behind the curtain stuff).
As long as 50%+1 showed, up, they could still continue to conduct business, though what business they conduct would still be subject to typical senatorial rules, I believe, so they would meet and talk about whatever the hell they wanted. If there was no quorum, they couldn't talk about anything at all (assuming there was an actual quorum call and the lack of a quorum was made official) and nothing could get done.
So calling a special session would be meaningless, essentially, unless Congress was close to an agreement and wanted to meet to continue .
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Then apparently we have the government we deserve because it's completely appalling to people for the President to hold Congressmen accountable for not doing their sworn duty.
And if only 51 Senators show up and they pass a budget, the other 49 can't do anything about it for sitting out on the sidelines. Sounds like a good opportunity for the Democrats to support their leader and pass a budget to me.
Source?
Not really. If he calls a bunch of people to work over the weekend because the U.S. is about to default if they don't reach a fiscal agreement, I don't think they're going to discuss making a national golf course in Montana. Just a hunch.
And if only 51 Senators show up and they pass a budget, the other 49 can't do anything about it for sitting out on the sidelines. Sounds like a good opportunity for the Democrats to support their leader and pass a budget to me.
Last edited:
Source? The constitution, I guess, along with the rules governing the operation of each branch. Even when they are in session, Congressmen either show up, or not. That's the way Congress works. What you posted says he can call a special session. That's it. There's no mention of use of force or of being able to require (under threat of what?) that they all show up, and then having an armed man make sure they are unable to leave until they've done what the president dictates. All is says is that he can call a special session. And all a special session is is a convening of Congress outside their normal schedule. All the usual rules apply, and the usual rules don't require everyone to attend. Surely you are aware that congressmen often miss votes and other sessions, yes? Yet you posted that Article 2 bit as proof he could lock them up and make them play nice, when it says nothing of the sort.
And yes, if 51 senators show up, they can conduct business. I never said anything to the contrary. Actually, if only 2 senators showed up, they could technically conduct business as long as no one made a quorum call, I guess. But that has fuck all to do with what you said, which was that there was some mechanism for the president to force Congress' hand.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are arguing about. You asserted that, based on what you posted, the president could confine Congress to their offices and forcibly keep them there until they pass a budget. He can't. That's what my post was explaining. He can call a session, but he can't force participation, or anything else. He can't lock them up until they do their jobs, and nice as that might be right now. I don't find it "appalling" that the president would try to get Congress to do his job. I never said anything remotely suggesting I might be. I simply said that there is no way for him to lock them in their offices and keep them there until they do their job. It's not appalling; it's just not possible as he does not have the authority to do that.
You said he can do something, and posted as proof something that says nothing of the sort. Then I pointed that out, and now you are making it into some political thing where I am appalled the the president might take a firm hand with Congress. Huh?
And yes, if 51 senators show up, they can conduct business. I never said anything to the contrary. Actually, if only 2 senators showed up, they could technically conduct business as long as no one made a quorum call, I guess. But that has fuck all to do with what you said, which was that there was some mechanism for the president to force Congress' hand.
Honestly, I have no idea what you are arguing about. You asserted that, based on what you posted, the president could confine Congress to their offices and forcibly keep them there until they pass a budget. He can't. That's what my post was explaining. He can call a session, but he can't force participation, or anything else. He can't lock them up until they do their jobs, and nice as that might be right now. I don't find it "appalling" that the president would try to get Congress to do his job. I never said anything remotely suggesting I might be. I simply said that there is no way for him to lock them in their offices and keep them there until they do their job. It's not appalling; it's just not possible as he does not have the authority to do that.
You said he can do something, and posted as proof something that says nothing of the sort. Then I pointed that out, and now you are making it into some political thing where I am appalled the the president might take a firm hand with Congress. Huh?
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
The Constitution says that the President can call a session of Congress; it doesn't say anything about Congressmen being able to simply ignore that call. If what you say is true, there's a piece of legislation and a Supreme Court decision somewhere that interprets the article that way.
I didn't say anything about forcing their hand of what was IN the budget, just that they should pass one because it's what they're required by law to do, and the President is in charge of organizations that execute and enforce the law.
Only Abe Lincoln, operating under what he understood were then very "undefined War Powers" (which he often interpreted to his advantages…) would have had the balls to make that happen.
We just don't see his kind any more. Thank God for that, probably…it being in a time of Insurrection and all that implies...
I don't think you understand how Congress works, or maybe what calling a session means. Again, all that means is that he can say that Congress is allowed to be open for business. The reason what you posted doesn't say anything about them being allowed to ignore it is because it isn't necessary to say that. Article 2 doesn't say Congress can vote on whatever they want during that time either. And it doesn't say that because the usual Congressional rules apply. Just because he opens their doors doesn't mean the rules under which they operate suddenly change. And one of those rules is that they are allowed to not show up as they see fit.
To be very clear, the president can say that Congress is open for business. While they are open, their usual rules of operation apply. And nowhere in those rules are individuals required to show up, no matter how important the issue on the table might be. The president has zero sway over how Congress operates and no ability to change their procedures and rules.
And since you don't seem to believe me http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2006/12/capitol_hooky.html
Saw SecSef statement on the email today...and watching our civilians not know whether they are getting furloughed tomorrow...sucks. Wish our leadership could get together and figure this out, between sequester and this, kind of a morale crusher