Rand Paul to Barack Obama: Do you support civil asset forfeiture?

[GunnyFreedom]

Can you give the short version of when it's possible to filibuster?

When you have control of the floor.

 

[Sweman]

Can you give the short version of when it's possible to filibuster?

When you have control of the floor.

Thanks, and the slighly longer version, that touches on how you gain control of the floor, goes?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Thanks, and the slighly longer version, that touches on how you gain control of the floor, goes?

Any of several ways, really. I'm not as familiar with Jefferson's Manual as I would need to be to answer that accurately.

One way would be to simply acquire the floor in ordinary debate and just never yield it.

 

[Sweman]

Any of several ways, really. I'm not as familiar with Jefferson's Manual as I would need to be to answer that accurately.

One way would be to simply acquire the floor in ordinary debate and just never yield it.

Okay, but thanks anyway.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Okay, but thanks anyway.

Sorry I couldn't be more help. The normal procedure is to take the floor during normal debate on the measure being filibustered. If leadership suspects a filibuster they may try to shut them out of debate. Then it gets complicated.

 

[specsaregood]

Thanks, and the slighly longer version, that touches on how you gain control of the floor, goes?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm

Debate, Filibusters, and Cloture

The presiding officer of the Senate may not use the power to recognize senators to control the flow of business. If no senator holds the floor, any senator seeking recognition has a right to be recognized, and then, usually, to speak for as long as he or she wishes (but only twice a day on the same question). Once recognized, a senator can move to call up any measure or offer any amendment or motion that is in order. Senate rules do not permit a majority to end debate and vote on a pending question.

Generally, no debatable question can come to a vote if senators still wish to speak. Senators who oppose a pending bill or other matter may speak against it at indefinite length, or delay action by offering numerous amendments and motions. A filibuster involves using such tactics in the hope of convincing the Senate to alter a measure or withdraw it from consideration. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are those few considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.

The only procedure Senate rules provide for overcoming filibusters is cloture, which cannot be voted until two days after it is proposed in a petition signed by 16 senators. Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of senators voting. If the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, amendment, or other matter, its further consideration is limited to 30 additional hours, including time consumed by votes and quorum calls, during which each senator may speak for no more than one hour.

Randal explained it in an interview after the drone filibuster. He said that generally leadership always leaves somebody/puppet in control of the floor from open to close. He didn't even know he was going to be able to do his drone filibuster until he was already in the chamber and discovered to his surprise that the floor was not under control; so he jumped on the opportunity. (I suspect that there being a big tadoo at the WH that day had something to do with it).

 

[Sweman]

Sorry I couldn't be more help. The normal procedure is to take the floor during normal debate on the measure being filibustered. If leadership suspects a filibuster they may try to shut them out of debate. Then it gets complicated.

No problem!

 

[Sweman]

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm


Randal explained it in an interview after the drone filibuster. He said that generally leadership always leaves somebody/puppet in control of the floor from open to close. He didn't even know he was going to be able to do his drone filibuster until he was already in the chamber and discovered to his surprise that the floor was not under control; so he jumped on the opportunity. (I suspect that there being a big tadoo at the WH that day had something to do with it).

So for there to be a debate, the senator in control of the floor allows "guest" speakers to talk? I guess that is what those puppets, or anyone in control, do.

 

[specsaregood]

So for there to be a debate, the senator in control of the floor allows "guest" speakers to talk? I guess that is what those puppets, or anyone in control, do.

Exactly my understanding. For example, Sen. Cruz' "filibuster" wasn't a real filibuster in that Sen. Reid allowed him to speak as long as he wanted. Reid could have ended it at any time.

This isn't the interview I was referring to; but it makes the point:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323628804578345490351677794

The Kentucky lawmaker said afterward that in order to start a filibuster, a senator must procedurally gain control of the floor, which is usually unavailable because of other legislative business. "We were able to get the floor and then just keep it—but I hadn't planned on it," Mr. Paul said.

 

[CaptUSA]

So...

If he filibusters now that he has announced his candidacy, the media will paint this as a purely political move. That brings with it the possibility that it overshadows the issue. Rand becomes the story as someone who is using the political process to further his own run for President. And you had better bet, they'd bring race into it.

HOWEVER...

There will be some in the media (ahem... Chris Matthews) that will take this opportunity to remind people what Rand is actually talking about. Plus, if they play the race card on him, Rand will be able to turn it around. It may help him with talk radio if he is throwing the race card back at the left like he did with abortion.


Basically, a filibuster has a high risk/reward potential. It could completely work in his favor or blow up in his face. I would think that his campaign would want some assurances from media sources before he took the leap.

 

[Ronin Truth]

AKA and other oxymoronic BS euphemisms for government theft.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Basically, a filibuster has a high risk/reward potential. It could completely work in his favor or blow up in his face. I would think that his campaign would want some assurances from media sources before he took the leap.

If Rand's team deemed a filibuster to be a tad too risky, he could just opt for an extra long speech on the wickedness of civil forfeiture, tie her into it, and basically make as big of a spectacle of his opposition to her that it garners some media attention without holding up the process. If nothing else, it would be good fodder for the general election when he tries to go after the inner city vote.

 

[philipped]

Abso-fuckin-loutely. If you are going to be a civil rights republican candidate, you have to nail your colours to the mast and go balls to the wall on it. Especially if you are white and calling out a black President.

This basically sums up how I feel on this issue, how far he's gone to rebuild a black conservative movement and his challenge to the washington machine. I hope he does it. +rep

 

[juleswin]

So...

If he filibusters now that he has announced his candidacy, the media will paint this as a purely political move. That brings with it the possibility that it overshadows the issue. Rand becomes the story as someone who is using the political process to further his own run for President. And you had better bet, they'd bring race into it.

HOWEVER...

There will be some in the media (ahem... Chris Matthews) that will take this opportunity to remind people what Rand is actually talking about. Plus, if they play the race card on him, Rand will be able to turn it around. It may help him with talk radio if he is throwing the race card back at the left like he did with abortion.


Basically, a filibuster has a high risk/reward potential. It could completely work in his favor or blow up in his face. I would think that his campaign would want some assurances from media sources before he took the leap.

I don't know about risk but the one you mentioned is no risk at all. Most of Rand's agenda in the senate has been about fixing the injustices in the justice system. His whole deal about non violent crimes, giving people their rights to vote etc. Also he has filibustered before he announced his candidacy. The little risk I see is him getting some big information wrong about asset forfeiture. This just goes along with his agenda to fix the injustice in our system and help the little man

This is all reward if you ask me. If he can get to pull it off, it will put liberals on the defense big time, make republicans look very petty for opposing her nomination on silly irrelevant issues and make Rand look like a boss

 

[specsaregood]

I don't know about risk but the one you mentioned is no risk at all. Most of Rand's agenda in the senate has been about fixing the injustices in the justice system. His whole deal about non violent crimes, giving people their rights to vote etc. Also he has filibustered before he announced his candidacy. The little risk I see is him getting some big information wrong about asset forfeiture. This just goes along with his agenda to fix the injustice in our system and help the little man

This is all reward if you ask me. If he can get to pull it off, it will put liberals on the defense big time, make republicans look very petty for opposing her nomination on silly irrelevant issues and make Rand look like a boss

If he does get the chance and goes for it (and FWIW I think it is worth it and could really jumpstart the campaign). I think he would need a large list of the most egregious abuses of the asset forfeiture program that he could read off (and bonus if he had videos/articles/testimonials that could be put up online during his speech). He would ideally have coordinated with some rights organizations that are against the asset forfeiture program so they are ready to go and hit the media at the same time.

of course coordinating all that means word would leak out about what he has planned and we haven't heard anything so...

well one can dream. But I do think this would be worth calling in a favor from the new senate majority leader who owes him big time.

 

[Valli6]

possible asset forfeiture case to bring up?

... I think he would need a large list of the most egregious abuses of the asset forfeiture program that he could read off (and bonus if he had videos/articles/testimonials that could be put up online during his speech)...

How about Eric Garner's father, Benjamin Carr?

No details were ever made known, but Garner's father stated in a video (at 0:49 in video below) that the cops stole money from his son, and that for this reason, his son "filed charges against them” before he was killed. It makes sense that any money Garner had on him when he was arrested was considered part of a crime and seized.

The media never followed up on this accusation, so it may be untrue - or it may have been a case of civil forfeiture that they preferred to keep quiet. Remember also, that at the time, Lorretta Lynch was “U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York" overseeing federal prosecutions in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and Long Island. “
That includes Eric Garner’s neighborhood!

 

[idiom]

This basically sums up how I feel on this issue, how far he's gone to rebuild a black conservative movement and his challenge to the washington machine. I hope he does it. +rep

Right, Obama never ran on black issues, he ran on being black and everybody hoped it would be enough.

If Rand tore into these issues hard enough, he could have people marching in the streets for him, with black senators marching for him.

If you want to do something other than red/blue you have to have real tangible obviously moral issues, that people can only oppose on the basis of "that's just the way it is".

Obama never said what he would change because he was to cowardly to name the issues.

I want a Presidential candidate who slips into protests incognito and gets beaten by cops. Then rips the country a new one from the Senate floor.