[actinic]

Originally Posted by sweetvelocity

It is official. He is blantanlty breaking the law and nobody but Rachel Maddow seems to be taking notice. I highly recommend watching the video.

The video has been totally debunked by none other than your liberal comrades - Ideology trumps facts for Rachel Maddow when it comes to Michigan (Susan J. Demas column) | MLive.com

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by actinic

The video has been totally debunked by none other than your liberal comrades - Ideology trumps facts for Rachel Maddow when it comes to Michigan (Susan J. Demas column) | MLive.com

And of course, in the midst of the tired and passive "They do it too!!!" rhetoric, no ones wants to present facts to back up their to answer this question (because their whining would then fall on deaf ears)...

bricarst (4/12/12) @ 9:00AM-

I guess my question would be, How many of those laws Granholm signed, passed the Legislature with a 2/3 margin in the first place?, making the IE approval pretty much a given. As apposed to recent IE passages when it was known full well that there was no 2/3 margin.

.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by actinic

The video has been totally debunked by none other than your liberal comrades - Ideology trumps facts for Rachel Maddow when it comes to Michigan (Susan J. Demas column) | MLive.com

* This is basically a rewording of the Detroit News article already commented upon and with the same depth. The PURPOSES were not discussed.
* So liberals/moderates have criticized the video. So what - that's what we do. We are not in lockstep and don't receive our daily talking points from above. Self-criticism is something "conservative" media never does.
* Interesting - after trashing the video's veracity, she called MSNBC the "liberal Fox News". Did you miss that one?

[michigan83]

* Interesting - after trashing the video's veracity, she called MSNBC the "liberal Fox News". Did you miss that one?

Yup. Most reasonable people know that MSNBC is just as bad as Fox News. One is leftist. One is right wing.

[michigan83]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

And of course, in the midst of the tired and passive "They do it too!!!" rhetoric, no ones wants to present facts to back up their to answer this question (because their whining would then fall on deaf ears)...

.

Well, it's not for lack of trying. I did some Googling, and I couldn't find numbers showing the balance of power for Michigan congresses of the past. I can't remember if Democrats had a 2/3 majority during the Granholm years, and my internet search skills apparently are not good enough to find it.

The issue of "what they were trying to pass" is probably somewhat irrelevant. Depending on which side you are on, the legislation from the opposing side might seem like pure evil, or it might seem like it is God's gift to society.

[313Weather]

Originally Posted by michigan83

Well, it's not for lack of trying. I did some Googling, and I couldn't find numbers showing the balance of power for Michigan congresses of the past. I can't remember if Democrats had a 2/3 majority during the Granholm years, and my internet search skills apparently are not good enough to find it.

The issue of "what they were trying to pass" is probably somewhat irrelevant. Depending on which side you are on, the legislation from the opposing side might seem like pure evil, or it might seem like it is God's gift to society.

I agree completely with the second part of your post. It's the legality of what they passed and how they passed it that's in question. It's a fair queestion as well, and it shouldn't be easily dismissed as just "they did it too" or "it needs to be done." What's the point of having laws if we're not going to abide by them?

That said, as for the rest of your post, what I can tell you is the Democrats did not have a supermajority in the house. However, with regards to the immediate effect clause, you don't necessary need a supermajority to declare its use, but 73 votes FOR a bill.

What Rachel MAddow showed, per the voting records, is that the Republicans in the house illegally passed the EFM law when they did so with the immediate effect clause, because it only passed with 62 votes. Juding from that alone, the fact that the house Republicans have blatantly ignored the house Democrats request for a roll call, and the video showing that the average vote for a bill occurs in less than 5 seconds is convincing enough evidence to question if any of the bills passed by the house Republicans had the 73 necessary votes.

It is obviously true that both parties have used the the Immediate Effect clause for most of their legislation. However, the problem I have with the folks chanting "They did it too" is while they may have used the clause jsut like the Republicans, it's a questions of whether they used it legally. If you can't prove that they used the clause illegally, then passively chanting "they did it too" gets us nowheree when there's been enough evidence to suggest the other side has. The fact that it's happening at all is disgusting and it should be investigated.

As for what's needed in Michigan, in terms of the legislative changes, the people of Michigan who state this must understand we have a state constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in this state, to abide by. If you want to amend the constitution to have certain things done a different way, that's what constitutional conventions are for. The people of Michigan had the opportunity to choose to hold one during the last election and you opted not to have one. So now you must follow the constitution you do have without complaint. That means passing legislation that doesn't have the 73 votes the legal way, waiting 1 year and 3 months for it to take effect (since a legislation session in Michigan lasts an entire year and laws not meeting the Immediate Effect Clause means any legislation passed cant' go into effect until 90 days after the end of a session). This allows time for people who disagree with the laws, or want it appealed, to have their say before the bricks start dropping with them.

[detwahDJ]

Originally Posted by michigan83

Yup. Most reasonable people know that MSNBC is just as bad as Fox News. One is leftist. One is right wing.

Nope, most people may not know that Fox is scripted from above and reasonable people don't want a corporate govt. A Fox tactic is - when caught in a lie just spread the blame around and say "they do it too". They also cut-and-paste videos in order to change their content. MSNBC was formed after 30 years to stand up to the bully.
If you support a corporate-run govt then you must be an investor with global rather than American allegiance. As I said before is Snyder of the same cloth, we must wait and see.

[michigan83]

Originally Posted by 313Weather

I agree completely with the second part of your post. It's the legality of what they passed and how they passed it that's in question. It's a fair queestion as well, and it shouldn't be easily dismissed as just "they did it too" or "it needs to be done." What's the point of having laws if we're not going to abide by them?

That said, as for the rest of your post, what I can tell you is the Democrats did not have a supermajority in the house. However, with regards to the immediate effect clause, you don't necessary need a supermajority to declare its use, but 73 votes FOR a bill.

What Rachel MAddow showed, per the voting records, is that the Republicans in the house illegally passed the EFM law when they did so with the immediate effect clause, because it only passed with 62 votes. Juding from that alone, the fact that the house Republicans have blatantly ignored the house Democrats request for a roll call, and the video showing that the average vote for a bill occurs in less than 5 seconds is convincing enough evidence to question if any of the bills passed by the house Republicans had the 73 necessary votes.

It is obviously true that both parties have used the the Immediate Effect clause for most of their legislation. However, the problem I have with the folks chanting "They did it too" is while they may have used the clause jsut like the Republicans, it's a questions of whether they used it legally. If you can't prove that they used the clause illegally, then passively chanting "they did it too" gets us nowheree when there's been enough evidence to suggest the other side has. The fact that it's happening at all is disgusting and it should be investigated.

As for what's needed in Michigan, in terms of the legislative changes, the people of Michigan who state this must understand we have a state constitution, which is the supreme law of the land in this state, to abide by. If you want to amend the constitution to have certain things done a different way, that's what constitutional conventions are for. The people of Michigan had the opportunity to choose to hold one during the last election and you opted not to have one. So now you must follow the constitution you do have without complaint. That means passing legislation that doesn't have the 73 votes the legal way, waiting 1 year and 3 months for it to take effect (since a legislation session in Michigan lasts an entire year and laws not meeting the Immediate Effect Clause means any legislation passed cant' go into effect until 90 days after the end of a session). This allows time for people who disagree with the laws, or want it appealed, to have their say before the bricks start dropping with them.

I can't disagree with any of this. I think you are right on the money this time.

[michigan83]

Originally Posted by actinic

The video has been totally debunked by none other than your liberal comrades - Ideology trumps facts for Rachel Maddow when it comes to Michigan (Susan J. Demas column) | MLive.com

Whoa. That column is awesome. I think I might print it out and hang it on my fridge. And Susan J. Demas is NOT a conservative. It is good to see Maddow taken to task.

Again... it's not that what the Republicans are doing is right. It's that this story was framed in such a dishonest way by Maddow.

[Sparrow_temp]

Fox News is the opposite end of the spectrum of CNN. MSNBC is in a league of it's own where it really doesn't qualify as a news station any more. It's left wing propaganda that more closely resembles an Obama equivalent of Joseph Goebbels.

Originally Posted by michigan83

Yup. Most reasonable people know that MSNBC is just as bad as Fox News. One is leftist. One is right wing.