Only Two Senators Present to pass $600-mill Border Security Bill by Unanimous Consent

either the two senators expect less 'flac' than i think they will get for their votes on these bills
or we have 98 senators who might have the shock of their lives on the day they all expect to
be re-elected. if a YEAH vote for either bill was a total instance of political suicide, then what
would the fine art of a slinking out of the chamber be this november or even in 2012 or 2014?
 
either the two senators expect less 'flac' than i think they will get for their votes on these bills
or we have 98 senators who might have the shock of their lives on the day they all expect to
be re-elected. if a YEAH vote for either bill was a total instance of political suicide, then what
would the fine art of a slinking out of the chamber be this november or even in 2012 or 2014?

No, it is because this way the democrats can pass something that the majority of americans approve of BUT have plausible deniability for part of their base that is for keeping the borders wide open.
 
Lol! And they added a tax on companies that have more that 50% H1-Bs to pay for it, as that is not what the H1-B program was created for. Gee, Chuckie admits that even the "legal" immigration process has been corrupted.
 
Hmm well I am for Border security if it does do what the title suggests(this is not always the case).

Yeah, even if the money gets approved, where will it really go? They usually redirect the money before it actually goes to Border security.

Passing this with just two Senators is really fishy. Is this Constitutional?
 
Wait, don't they need quorum to approve anything?

Nope. They always ask for Unanimous Consent and if someone objects, then they have a vote on it. I have turned on C-Span 2 several times to see Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) passing things through without any debate because no one is in the Senate.
 
So it sounds like this is all agreed upon beforehand. Any Senator can show up to block it.

Unanimous Consent

From its beginning, the Senate has transacted much of its business by unanimous consent. The Senate's small size, few rules, and informality encouraged the rise of this practice. A single objection ("I object") blocks a unanimous consent request. Even several of the Senate's early rules incorporated unanimous consent provisions to speed the Senate's routine business.

Two types of unanimous consent are prevalent in today's Senate. Simple unanimous consent requests deal with noncontroversial matters, such as senators asking unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of amendments. Complex unanimous consent agreements establish a tailor-made procedure for considering virtually any kind of business that the Senate takes up. They are commonly brokered by the parties' floor leaders and managers. Two fundamental objectives of these accords are to limit debate and to structure the amendment process. As two Senate parliamentarians wrote in the Senate's volume of precedents: "Whereas Senate Rules permit virtually unlimited debate, and very few restrictions on the right to offer amendments, these [unanimous consent] agreements usually limit debate and the right of Senators to offer amendments."

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm
 
domestic drones! yay! KILL those immigrants!

I wonder what the true cost is of a drone vs. a couple of guys in a helicopter?

$600 million could hire a lot of agents, and probably some helicopters and pilots, but $600 million is a drop in the bucket to the Military-Industrial complex (for drones and other technology)...
 
I wonder what the true cost is of a drone vs. a couple of guys in a helicopter?

$600 million could hire a lot of agents, and probably some helicopters and pilots, but $600 million is a drop in the bucket to the Military-Industrial complex (for drones and other technology)...

Probably buy one drone and it will be sent to guard the Hawaiian borders.
 
Yeah, even if the money gets approved, where will it really go? They usually redirect the money before it actually goes to Border security.

Passing this with just two Senators is really fishy. Is this Constitutional?

Assuming it's in line with Senate rules, I believe the method is technically Constitutional. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to arbitrarily make the rules governing its own proceedings.

As for the bill itself...that comes back to the debate about the federal government's powers over the national border.

If "drones" means what I think it does...that creeps me the f' out, and it makes me consider more than ever that this border security may eventually be used to keep us in.
 
Last edited:
We need to remember that this border security may not be for keeping illegals out, but for keeping YOU in. Drones, not cool.
 
If this is an example of the rules they play by then we should go to the senate and house, start a session and appoint ourselves temporary Reps and begin voting on repealing a lot of laws. Seems like as long as you are in the Capital, holding a gavel and have one other person to play along, you can do whatever you want.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top