Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Armed Militias Pledge to Fight for Fugitive Oregon GOP Lawmakers ‘At Any Cost’ (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter mcintyre1
- Start date
jonessed
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I was thinking "insurrectionists", but I have no quarrel with "terrorists"*
* As the proper term here, not in general.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
I knew there'd be one hung up on that "and" -- how about the definition provided by Bruce Hoffman (who I would hope you agree is an expert on the subject) with an assist by the Oxford English Dictionary?
Ilov80s
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
How so?
People are going to break laws. When our judicial system ignores them, I don't blame the percentage of people that tried to beat the system. It's been happening since the beginning of time and will continue to do so.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Are we talking about the same thing? I thought this thread was about lawmakers hiding it avoid voting, making threats about harming other members of Congress, citizens intimidating lawmakers, etc. What does that have to do with the judicial branch?
KCitons
Footballguy
Kind of. One part of it is about lawmakers hiding. That seems like it would be an easy thing to legislate. Vote or get out and let someone in that will do the job. Unfortunately, we don't live in Oregon, so it's really out of our hands.
The citizens intimidating lawmakers could fall under terrorist threats. Which is an established law. Seems like our judicial system should also do their job. Problem solved.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
If the judicial system stood up to them and made it clear that any threats would lead to warrants, it would make them take pause.
If they actually intervene with any action taken against GOP lawmakers by law enforcement with force, that's obstruction of justice.
jonessed
Footballguy
The new definition is fairly broad. Large segments of the BLM protestors would fall into that bucket.
How did the Oregon GOP get so crazy?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-did-the-oregon-republican-party-get-so-crazy
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-did-the-oregon-republican-party-get-so-crazy
ooofff...i feel like the wheels are just off the GOP and the only keeping them irrelevancy is the screwy voting system and cheating
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
As a former member of this exact party, I kinda feel like defending them a bit. We still have plenty of Republicans who descend from the ideological leaders of Governor Tom McCall and Senators Mark Hatfield and Bob Packwood (yes, Packwood was a womanizer and a drunk, but he was also a moderate who could work with both parties). Overall, the state is not nearly as blue as this article implies -- although it is certainly more blue now than it was in years past.
Most of the extremists are in the eastern and southern parts of the state. The I-5 corridor is mostly purple, and the only overwhelmingly blue area is Portland.
Anyway, the reasonable Republicans are still here, but they've been faced with the dilemma of either moving to the middle or moving to the right. And many of them have chosen to distinguish themselves by moving to the right.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Looks like support for the militias and against law enforcement was what finally got /r/The_Donald quarantined on Reddit.
Please explain the legal rights that are present for the "cops if they come to get them". I do not live in Oregon, but I am unaware of any laws that give the executive branch of our government the right to compel the legislative branch to do anything. Let alone give the executive branch the legal right to forcibly compel the legislative branch to do anything.
mcintyre1
Footballguy
Great information, thank you. Upon researching, the Constitution sections mentioned provide no basis for the Governors actions so I'm not sure why you included them. The Senate rules might, not sure of those legal implications without further review.
Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution: Quorum; failure to effect organization. Two thirds of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may meet; adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members. A quorum being in attendance, if either house fail to effect an organization within the first five days thereafter, the members of the house so failing shall be entitled to no compensation from the end of the said five days until an organization shall have been effected.—
Article IV, Section 12 of the Constitution: Quorum; failure to effect organization. Two thirds of each house shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may meet; adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members. A quorum being in attendance, if either house fail to effect an organization within the first five days thereafter, the members of the house so failing shall be entitled to no compensation from the end of the said five days until an organization shall have been effected.—
Henry Ford
Footballguy
This is the Senate rule he also cited.
(2) If a quorum is present, the Senate shall proceed with the transaction of business. When there is no quorum present, a lesser number of members may adjourn from day to day and compel the attendance of absent members.
Then the other statute he cited lets the Governor help the legislature compel by bringing in the State Police.
Last edited by a moderator:
In reviewing ORS181A.090 there are serious questions. There are no criminal laws broken for not reporting as a member of the Senate, so that portion is not relevant. The next question is, what regulation did they break? Is not showing up to create a quorum a breaking of a regulation? Can you reference that regulation? I highly doubt it. In fact, refusing a quorum is a pretty standard method to compel action of any governed body.
Last edited by a moderator:
When items are cited that have no relevance it takes a little time to work through them, sorry for taking one at a time. Especially when I'm not familiar with a particular state's constitution and laws.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The article of the Constitution you quoted also allowed for a smaller number to meet and compel the other members to attend. It’s the statute he also cited that allows to Governor to help that ties them together
At what point did the smaller number of Senators meet and compel the absent members to attend via a vote of that body?
Edit: Just asking, I may have missed that article in the news. This is important. If they did, there could be a good debate about the authority of the Governor. If they did not, the Governor is acting out of line.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
June 21.
https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2019/06/oregon-governor-sends-police-to-find-missing-republicans-bring-them-to-capitol.html
When Republicans failed to show up on the Senate floor for today’s 11 a.m. session, Senate President Peter Courtney of Salem, a Democrat, asked the sergeant at arms to search the Capitol for the missing lawmakers. That search proved fruitless.
In response to the walkout, Courtney formally requested that Brown dispatch Oregon State Police troopers to round up the missing Republicans.
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
[scooter]
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
So, has the braggadocio been backed up or were they simply blowing smoke?
seems to me they have proved they are loud but not committed. That is a good thing. They have been unmasked.
seems to me they have proved they are loud but not committed. That is a good thing. They have been unmasked.
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter]
Footballguy
I don't think that the militia guys got a chance to prove their mettle. The senators all went into hiding before the militia could come to their defense.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Maybe the Militia guys are busy organizing an underground railroad to smuggle them into the Dakotas.
Interesting. So the Senate President, while on the Senate floor without a quorum, while apparently not taking a vote of any kind of the members that were there, asked the Governor to dispatch police to round them up. The wording of all of this is pretty weak, I really don't think the Governor and the Democrats in the Senate would win this if it all ended up in court. I also think they know this, just like they did when they used the same tactic under the same state laws. So while technically I think the Republicans are well within their legal rights to act as they have, the violence rhetoric is over the top. Will it matter? Probably not, that kind of thing is going on far too much these days.
Looks like the tactic has worked though, the minority used the only tactic they had left to prevent something that they opposed.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Win on what? You've been shown the actual constitutional provisions and mechanisms by which this is done, and it's consistent with how it was handled.
[scooter]
Footballguy
The Senate president isn't required to take a vote, and the Oregon State Police described the Governor's request as "a lawful directive".
I mean, I think the whole thing is a bunch of grandstanding, but I don't think there's anything nefarious going on. Everyone is using the legal options available to them.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I hated when the wisconsin senators did this so obviously hate the thought of it happening again.
NCCommish
Footballguy
To be honest both. Why isn't this country up in arms over some home grown terrorists threatening a duly elected legislature with murder and why the hell are they still owning guns walking free?
NCCommish
Footballguy
What happened to elections have consequences and we settle this at the ballot box? Not by threatening to kill anyone who came to make us do our job?
KCitons
Footballguy
Who do you want to be angry? And what level of anger do you want them to have? (in comparison to what)
Just a guess, but I would guess if it was more centered around Trump, there would be a greater anger from people on this board. That seems to be the common denominator for most of the anger.
By comparison, I've felt the people should be have more anger towards the lives lost due to DUI's and alcohol compared to guns, but that's not the case.
As a gun owner, and a 2nd Amendment supporter, I think the threats made by these people should have been met with swift legal action. But, like most political things here, I don't get any more angry about it than I do the abortion debate, the wall, NK, or the tariffs.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Anyone who considers themselves a patriot should be infuriated. Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green, whatever designation. I didn't serve to have some doosh bags with guns subvert our country to their will with threats. And I would feel the same if they were helping Democrats. This way leads to banana republic and death squads.
Mookie
Footballguy
More hypocrisy - The seizure of democratic control through unlawful means by an outspoken minority is precisely the tyranny they are so afraid of.
KCitons
Footballguy
There was no action taken. The only action was the lawmakers leaving in order to prevent a vote. The rest was talk. I think that's why it's less if a bug deal. Had there been a confrontation, there would have been charges filed.
I would compare it to the people driving around with bumper stickers that say "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands". Is that a threat? Is it a terroristic threat?
I would compare it to the people driving around with bumper stickers that say "they can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hands". Is that a threat? Is it a terroristic threat?
Mookie
Footballguy
Oregon should throw a parade for them. "Gosh guys, thanks for coming back to carry out that oath of office you swore to, and thanks for not shooting anyone!"
They abdicated their responsibility to participate in the democratic institution for which they were elected. They should be impeached for that. Their moronic threats make them even less qualified to hold public office.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I thought they were threatening law enforcement sent to execute an order of the legislature, not the legislators themselves. A distinction without much meaning I suppose.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Thank you for your service against subversive doosh bags, and all threats, foreign and domestic against our republic. I know that is a bit more specific than the platitude of just thank you for your service, but I like it better the way you phrased it.
KCitons
Footballguy
It seems like you've added another thing to be angry about now. GOP disappearing. Armed militia. Lack of anger in general.
Nobody suggested a parade. Or even condoning the actions by lawmakers. Even though it's within their rights to leave and refrain from voting. This would be where I point out the right to peaceful protest. (Odd how one side is okay when it fits their agenda).
If the people of Oregon are unhappy with the way they are being represented, then they will vote certain reps out of office. Impeachment is overstepping, the same way threats of violence is overstepping.
The lawmakers never made the threats. It was the militia. Two different people.
Similar threads
