TexasCHLforum.com

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.

Vitticeps wrote:Working within the rules by abusing and exploiting them isn't an admirable act in my view.

Do you say that only because using the rules to their fullest worked against something you are passionate about in this case? Would you be for the stretching of the rules if the tables were turned and there was a bill on the table with a remote chance of coming up that would strip 2A rights or some other cause that you were passionate about and the only way that the bill dies is because of said rules stretching/abusing/exploiting?

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.

If I'm going to be consistent in my praise of the rules when they work for me, I have to praise the rules when they work against me as well. That doesn't mean that I shouldn't look for a way to change the rules, but I also have to acknowledge that I change the rules at my own peril.

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.

In my opinion, the likely death of SB 11 hangs VERY firmly on Strauss and his buddies shoulders. The fact that the House had the Senate bills (SB 11 and SB 17) for nearly 2 months before they did anything with them points very squarely to the Strauss (Calendars Committee appointed by Strauss, overseen by Strauss) as the source of much of the issue. What should have been a stellar year for 2A bills winds up being pretty underwhelming. The biggest positive I see coming out of this session is the passage of SB 273 by both houses. Finally some teeth to stop governmental entities from posting unenforceable 30.06 signs!

joelamosobadiah wrote:

joe817 wrote:The guy standing to the left of Strauss; glasses & bald head....is he the House Parlimentarian?

That's what I thought too, but when I looked it up, it's not him. Not sure who that was.

That is Dennis Bonnen
http://www.house.state.tx.us/members/me ... istrict=25" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;