TexasCHLforum.com

cprems wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I spoke too soon about the Zerwas amendment. I can't say more now.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I really appreciate your updates and all the hard work but unless these amendments stop before midnight and there is a vote, this is just dressing.

They're going to run out the clock.

ScooterSissy wrote:

K5GU wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:There's no time limits being enforced either. They aren't going to get past amendment 1.

I think a member on the floor has to move a "point of order" to enforce the time limit. If they aren't paying attention or have all gone out to join Stickland for a cheeseburger, they won't be able to declare the point of order.

Some of you folks really don't seem to like Strickland. The "cheeseburger" comment sounds much like the childishness comments that have been going around.
Why?

SewTexas wrote:I walked away for a moment and now we are talking about children in foster care.....did we change bills?

Aggie_engr wrote:So Charles, I noticed there was only one pre-filed amendment to SB19, which ended up with 30 or so amendments offered. Is this normal or are there lawmakers/interns that sit around on standby that can crank out crap amendments that the Reps fully know won't be adopted just for the mere purpose of stalling?

TXBO wrote:. . . SB 19 is the most disgusting political display I have ever witnessed.

Smily wrote:Charles!

Is there hope still?

or should I start drinking?

Aggie_engr wrote:Wasn't another bill postponed until 8pm? So that puts three bills ahead of SB11?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It has nothing to do with guns, but I'm going to write the Governor and ask him to veto SB19 solely because it was used as a vehicle to great special protection to elected officials. Last session, the House refused to concur with HB508 because it created a special class of people (elected officials) who could carry their handguns everywhere in the State. The Bill went to conference and came out with even more people added to the group of elites. The House voted it down overwhelmingly. If I recall correctly, there were only 13 votes in favor.

Fast forward one session and House Members don't have a problem treating elected officials as a privileged class. This is disgusting.

Chas.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:I applaud the legislators for using the rules as written to achieve their desired result. I only wish some of our national representatives would stand on principle and use the rules to their fullest extent to block things that they dislike.

As much as I may dislike the likely outcome of their actions, I appreciate that they are willing to work within the rules as written.

This was not an underhanded move; it's done all the time. It is done in part because of the Star Chamber-like procedure of having a Calendars Committee that works in absolute secrecy. The House should have the same procedure used by the Senate so no Member can secretly kill/tag a bill in Calendars.

Chas.

I was referring to the action on the floor today rather than anything leading up to this in the Calendars Committee. The fact that SB 11 made it out of the Calendars Committee and onto the floor calendar when it did meant that there was a limited time for the bill to live. I appreciate that those opposed to it worked within the rules of the House to kill a bill they deemed unacceptable while potentially killing other bills that they may have supported.

Suspension of the rules is working within the rules. You make it sound like the attempt was both unusual and unethical; it was neither. It a way to prioritize bills and to counter the Star Chamber impact of the Calendars Committee. As already noted, this is precisely the procedure that is used in the Senate to make the process open and transparent, rather than having a Calendars Committee.

Chas.

I think I'm being misunderstood here.

I applaud Rep. Phillips for trying to suspend the rules (Working within the rules) to get to SB 11 faster to achieve my desired outcome - passage of SB 11. There are rules for how to suspend the rules for a reason. If you can get enough people to go along with it, give it a try!

Up to the point that the motion to suspend the rules failed, I appreciate the extended use of time to stall as much as possible to run out the clock (Working within the rules - fully using allotted time, discussion, etc.)

After the motion failed, I appreciate the art of using legitimate stalling tactics to run out the clock as much as possible (working within the written rules). This is exactly the same as in a football game - If you want to run out the clock and give the opposing team as little time to mount a challenge, you keep the ball in bounds and take as long as you can on your snaps, including taking penalties if you think it is to your advantage. I appreciate that people know the rules and know how to use them to achieve their desired result without breaking them. It doesn't mean that I have to like the outcome, but I appreciate that the rules are followed to the letter.

I just have to be fair and praise the rules when they work to my advantage as well as when they work to my disadvantage. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:I applaud the legislators for using the rules as written to achieve their desired result. I only wish some of our national representatives would stand on principle and use the rules to their fullest extent to block things that they dislike.

As much as I may dislike the likely outcome of their actions, I appreciate that they are willing to work within the rules as written.

This was not an underhanded move; it's done all the time. It is done in part because of the Star Chamber-like procedure of having a Calendars Committee that works in absolute secrecy. The House should have the same procedure used by the Senate so no Member can secretly kill/tag a bill in Calendars.

Chas.

I was referring to the action on the floor today rather than anything leading up to this in the Calendars Committee. The fact that SB 11 made it out of the Calendars Committee and onto the floor calendar when it did meant that there was a limited time for the bill to live. I appreciate that those opposed to it worked within the rules of the House to kill a bill they deemed unacceptable while potentially killing other bills that they may have supported.

Ruark wrote:It says at http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; that SB 11 as of 5/26/15 (today), SB11 has been placed on the "major state calendar." Does that mean anything?