Bankster Puppet Governor Walker surrenders to the Constitution of the USA!

[Dig]

Gov. Walker to honor judge's order halting law on union curbs
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/03/gov-walker-to-honor-judges-order-halting-law-on-union-curbs/1
Mar 31, 2011 11:52 AM
By Douglas Stanglin, USA TODAY

Update at 2:30 p.m. ET: Department of Administration Secretary Mike Huebsch issued a statement saying that Gov. Scott Walker would comply with Sumi's order and halt preparations to begin deducting money from most public workers' paychecks but that the governor's administration believes the law took effect after a state office published online. "While I believe the budget repair bill was legally published and is indeed law, given the most recent court action, we will suspend the implementation of it at this time," Huebsch said. Earlier posting: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's administration will comply with a judge's order to put on hold a controversial law curbing the collective bargaining rights of state public employee unions, two state officials tell the Associated Press. The move comes after Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi ruled that the law had not been properly published and was not in effect, the Journal Sentinel reports.

Here is a copy of her two-paragraph ruling.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, tell the AP that the Walker administration will halt preparations to begin deducting money from public workers' paychecks under the terms of the law. Sumi had ordered the secretary of State not to publish the law, which would have put it into effect. The Walker administration sought to bypass that order by having a different agency officially publish it. Sumi warned that anyone who violated her order would face sanctions.

[Dok]

What does the Constitution of the USA have to do with this case? This is an internal State matter that should be handled by the Constitution of Wisconsin.

And even if you go by the Constitution of the USA the Judicial cannot trump both the Executive or the  Legislative. And that is exactly what you have here.

or am I wrong? 

[Kilika]

Quite the pickle they find themselves in isn't it?

[Dig]

What does the Constitution of the USA have to do with this case? This is an internal State matter that should be handled by the Constitution of Wisconsin.

9th and 10th amendments define this authority by the states.

And even if you go by the Constitution of the USA the Judicial cannot trump both the Executive or the  Legislative. And that is exactly what you have here.

The judicial can trump them both by exposing a law as unconstitutional as was done with the Brady Bill.

[Dok]

This whole stop the bill depends on if the Wisonsin Open meeting law was violated. Well it would if not for Senate special rule 93. Lets look at rule 93,

Senate Rule 93. Special, extended or extraordinary sessions. Unless otherwise provided by the senate for a specific special, extended or extraordinary session, the rules of the senate adopted for the regular session shall, with the following modifications, apply to each special session called by the governor and to each extended or extraordinary session called by the senate and assembly organization committees or called by a joint resolution approved by both houses:

(1) No senate bill, senate joint resolution or senate resolution shall be considered unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the proclamation calling the special session or to the subjects enumerated by the committees on organization or in the joint resolution calling the extended or extraordinary session and is recommended for introduction by the committee on senate organization or by the joint committee on employment relations.

(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093

well, it doesent look like itr was, in fact it looks like the Senate went above and beyond the rules and posted the notice with a 2 hour notice. So really what we have here is an activist judge, as usual from the liberal left, violating the law. Its that simple.

[Dok]

9th and 10th amendments define this authority by the states.

Which im pretty sure says that the US Gov, has no athority in this what so ever.

The judicial can trump them both by exposing a law as unconstitutional as was done with the Brady Bill.

ya i just looked into that. The Exucutive and the Legislative seems to have very little power over the Judicial. There seems to be no way the 2 can over come the Judicial in rulings. That doesent seem correct. 

[agentbluescreen]

What does the Constitution of the USA have to do with this case? This is an internal State matter that should be handled by the Constitution of Wisconsin.

And even if you go by the Constitution of the USA the Judicial cannot trump both the Executive or the  Legislative. And that is exactly what you have here.

or am I wrong?  

Very wrong, in a republic the charter or constitution is the supreme law. It can only be altered or amended by a very complex and/or super majority election (ratification or amending) process, not by politicians, and is essentially a paper monarch. The sole interpreter of the laws new laws and supreme law is the (various levels of) courts.

Legislators can (and often do) easily pass laws that fail constitutional law testing by the courts. If a law is unconstitutional and the challenge to it is ruled valid by the courts it is null and void. Executive legislators have the least or practically no power at all other than to assent to the passage of a bill (as presented) into law, or refuse to (veto power) which is only operative after a bill is passed and before it is proclaimed as law, for the courts to test, enforce or rule as invalid.

Executives can and do circumvent both law and the courts by the use of illegal military "code"-fascist war powers which is why war can only be authorized by the legislature. For example it is illegal to order a person to risk death (suicidal act) unless they are a soldier at a time of war. It is illegal to have an army unless there is a war. Since WWII criminal fascists have perpetuated an illegal and nonexistent endless war to babysit their criminal nuclear toys.

The Executive does have two other very bad powers that screw the system up. They alone can pick and choose criminal sycophants as judges who they can depend upon to break the constitution and they can add as many criminal sycophant judges as they like (or need) to overrule any existing ones who get uppity and decide to do what's right. (there is no limit to the number of judges the Supreme Court can consist of - FDR used this, but the legislature must still "confirm" the appointments)

[Dig]

This whole stop the bill depends on if the Wisonsin Open meeting law was violated. Well it would if not for Senate special rule 93. Lets look at rule 93,

well, it doesent look like itr was, in fact it looks like the Senate went above and beyond the rules and posted the notice with a 2 hour notice. So really what we have here is an activist judge, as usual from the liberal left, violating the law. Its that simple.

Your argument lacks any basis in reality. But it does support the false narrative about "activist judges" which is a globalist plot to destroy the last branch of government the globalists do not yet control. That is why they assassinated Judge Roll. The only slander against the judge (who is a native, elected three times by the people, and who was educated locally...gives her more of a credible say that the banksters raping the state of all resources) is a clever "Red State" yellow jorno piece that targets her son for being politically active: http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/03/21/wisconsin-judge-maryann-sumi-her-seiu-afl-cio-political-operative-son/

Take a look at what is really going on beyond the Murdoch mind control programming:

The Scam in Wisconsin
Bashing public employees as a smokescreen to hide a fat cat scam to grab State assets
http://prof77.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/the-scam-in-wisconsin/
February 22, 2011 by prof77

Update 2/27/2011: POLICE:State Capitol of Wisconsin: ‘We have been ordered by the legislature to kick you all out at 4:00 today. But we know what’s right from wrong. We will not be kicking anyone out, in fact, we will be sleeping here with you! (understory.ran.org)

A huge upwelling is happening in the heart of humanity and it is an internal thing. It is coming from an unseen place and it can’t be defended against by those seeking to hinder its growth. . . We are awakening and we are seeing that we have a deeply shared common cause. (Source)

.

Why is Wisconsin Governor Walker leading such a visible attack on Wisconsin’s public employees?

Bashing public employee unions is a smokescreen to hide yet another fat cat scam to grab State assets.


Smokescreen

Right now everyone thinks this is about unions and collective bargaining and the rights of the worker.  BUT, what Wisconsin Governor Walker really wants is for Democrats to just “compromise” and pass his budget law “as is”–a budget law that authorizes selling off of Wisconsin’s state-owned power plants for pennies on the dollar in closed unsolicitated bids for which there will be no oversight.

It’s Enron-style cronyism all over again.

Here’s how the scam is set up:

1) Koch Brothers get their puppet Governor Walker in power
2) Governor Walker gins up a crisis
3) Democrats and Progressives take the bait and counter-protest on collective bargaining
4) Governor Walker will compromise on collective bargaining if the rest of the budget is passed as is
5) Bill passes, with trojan horse give-a-way to the Koch Brothers nested in
6) Koch Brothers will buy Wisconsin state-owned power plants for pennies on the dollar in closed unsolicitated bids for which there will be no oversight
7) Koch Brothers get the best vertical monopoly in a generation (Source)


Koch Brothers

Every point in the above list is carefully documented in Patience John’s article, “The Koch Brothers’ End Game in Wisconsin“.

Here’s the actual language in Governor Walker’s pending budget law. Read it for yourself. It will authorize him to sell off Wisconsin’s state-owned power utilities for pennies on the dollar, in closed unsolicitated bids, for which there will be no oversight:


State of Wisconsin
SENATE BILL 11

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/…; Google Quick View of PDF: http://docs.google.com/…

Bottom of Page 23:

SECTION 44. 16.896 of the statutes is created to read:
16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

Get that? Read it again.

There are two big whoppers in this section of Walker’s pending budget law:
It will allow the Koch Brothers to buy or contract to operate state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants in Wisconsin without a solicitation of bids.
Not only that, Walker’s budget law will redefine “public interest”! Who gets to decide? Not the public, Governor Walker by fiat!


Wisconsin Governor Walker

This is what it is about at the end of the day. Governor Walker will repay his backers, the Koch brothers, by selling the Koch brothers the state-owned utility system of Wisconsin for pennies on the dollar.

Governor Walker has intentionally muddied the waters concerning unions to muddy waters hoping no one will see the wholescale give-a-way of the state-owned public infrastructure to private interests.

Getting control of Wisconsin’s energy utilities will consolidate Koch Brothers’ existing operations in Wisconsin. Here’s what they already own: (Source: http://www.kochind.com/…)
Flint Hills Resources, LLC, through its subsidiaries, is a leading refining and chemicals company. Its subsidiaries market products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ethanol, olefins, polymers and intermediate chemicals, as well as base oils and asphalt. A subsidiary distributes refined fuel through its strategically located pipelines and terminals in Junction City, Waupun, Madison and Milwaukee. Another subsidiary manufactures asphalt that is distributed to terminals in Green Bay and Stevens Point.
Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. operates a pipeline system that crosses Wisconsin, part of the nearly 4,000 miles of pipelines owned or operated by the company.
The C. Reiss Coal Company is a leading supplier of coal used to generate power. The company has locations in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan.

When the Koch brothers consolidate ownership of resources, distribution and generation of energy in Wisconsin, the Koch brothers will have a vertical monopoly that would make even Rockefeller blush!

And just imagine the profits! Their investment in Walker is gonna pay out big time.

Which was the plan all along.

Now we know the end game, who is going to block it? (Source)

It’s not hard to see that these deals are going to be the sort of “heads I win, tails you lose” arrangements that bankers are so skilled at cutting with the great unwashed public. (Source)

Cui bono? Who could possibly benefit from giving the governor the ability to sell the state’s “heating, cooling, and power plants” (there are 32 of them), or “contract with a private entity” to operate them, without a bid process or any regulatory oversight? (Source)

Misdirection at Work

There is a kernel of truth in Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s claim of a “budget shortfall” of $137 million. But Walker, a Republican, failed to tell the state that less than two weeks into his term as governor, he, with his swollen Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature, pushed through $117 million in tax breaks for business allies of the GOP. There is your crisis. (Source)

Look at how easy it is to solve Wisconsin’s budget deficit, as Paul Jay stated on The Real News Network:

“How about Wisconsin passes a law that takes the estate tax level back to 2001? And let’s say the first million’s tax free. The collective net worth of the esteemed group on the Forbes 400 from Wisconsin comes to around $21.7 billion. That would make Wisconsin’s share of their estates at the time of passing around $4 billion. We just paid down the debt.”

.

 

.

.

How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies

.

The Great American Giveaway (Source)

One of the Lootocracy’s objectives is to confiscate all the assets that the middle class has built with its tax dollars. For decades the “privatization” movement has been a front for this plunder of the public’s resources, allowing private corporations to enrich themselves by providing services that were once provided at lower cost by the government itself.

How did that work out? Xe, the Company Formerly Known as Blackwater, provides mercenaries for our Middle Eastern wars — at great public expense, and sometimes acting outside the law in ways that harm our national security. The privatization of prisons and reform schools gave us the case of the monstrous judges who railroaded innocent kids into incarceration in return for bribes from a private youth detention facility contractor.

On a national scale, money intended for worthy college students got diverted into private jets and fat salaries after the privatization of the student loan enterprise Sallie Mae, and the privatization of mortgage backers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to a series of scandals, multimillion dollar payouts for incompetent executives, and a worsening of our financial crisis.

Private Parties

With a record like that, you’d think the privatization movement would be dead. And you’d be right — if it weren’t for the billions being provided to it by the Koch Brothers and other private financiers. They’re major backers of “ALEC” — the “American Legislative Exchange Council” — an organization that proves how smart and determined the armies of the Lootocrats really are. There are two very smart strategies behind ALEC:

1) While everybody’s focused on what goes on in Washington, ALEC is able to plunder the massive resources of state and local government.

2) State legislatures are the “farm league” for tomorrow’s governors, Senators, and Presidents. ALEC isn’t just buying state government. It’s buying tomorrow’s national leaders too.

This secret army has a clear agenda: Attain power, give away the “store” once in office, and decimate programs that help the middle class and lower income people. Scott Walker’s actions fit the playbook perfectly. In fact, his bill was reportedly drafted by ALEC, whose primary objectives include the drafting of “model legislation.”

Two enterprising representatives from People for the American Way were able to get into an ALEC meeting in 2005 and, as Joshua Holland reported, they cast a light on ALEC’s role as ” the connective tissue that links state legislators with right-wing think tanks, leading anti-tax activists and corporate money.” They were also able to collect information on the breadth and audacious scope of the ALEC agenda, which is mirrored by other groups offering support for Walker’s efforts — groups such as “Americans For Prosperity,” another Koch-funded front group.

The war on unions is an essential part of the ALEC Assault. Unions are a double threat: First, they interfere with the Lootocracy’s ability to treat its private-sector employees as badly as the law will allow. And government employees are fighting for pay and benefits that interfere with the broader agenda of strangling all forms of government spending so that taxes can be kept low for the Lootocrats. That’s why, as Harold Meyerson points out, unions are under attack in a number of GOP-led states, and by Republican members of Congress who are trying to strip funding from the National Labor Relations Board.

All across the nation Republican governors are using the same playbook: Cry “poor” while giving tax cuts to the rich, then use the resulting crises to bust unions and gut services for the poor and middle class. They’re all reading from the same script, and if their line readings aren’t convincing it doesn’t really matter. Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarzenegger have already taught us that Republicans don’t need to be good actors to succeed.

As Wisconsin Goes

Gov. Walker insists that the state’s pension plan is a key driver of the state’s fiscal problems. But the state is actually projected to have a small surplus next year, depending on how it handles its debt to Minnesota and a couple of other key issues. In any case, the state’s pension plan is extremely well-funded, with 99.67% already in its accounts.

What happened in Wisconsin? The Governor cut taxes for the wealthy, then declared a budget emergency. In classic “Shock Doctrine” fashion, he used that emergency to slash a retirement plan that’s highly stable financially, along with medical services for middle-class and lower-income people.

What’s happening in Washington? In the name of “austerity economics” and deficit-cutting, a deal was cut that extends tax cuts for the wealthy. Now the conventional wisdom is that we must cut Social Security, a benefit program that’s much more solvent than most government programs, and then gut medical assistance programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Let’s see: A tax cut for the wealthy, followed by the declaration of a budget emergency and the gutting of retirement and medical programs. And along the way, a giveaway of public resources to private corporations. That’s not coincidence: It’s the plan.

The Home Front

So, cui bono? The richest 1% of Americans, along with the corporations — and politicians — they own. We know who the warriors are, we know their strategy. We know they’re winning, too. Can the tide be turned? Not if the people opposed to this Lootocracy refuse to acknowledge what’s happening.  (Source)

[Dig]

Marbury v Madison was the first SCOTUS case to test SCOTUS powers. It is remembered as the day that the United States was reinforced as a powerful republic. With that decision, every individual was protected by the rights reinforced in the constitution which could not be removed by voting and political trends. It is a powerful stand for the rights of man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in the world that a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional."[citation needed] This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional. Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.

More in this book: http://www.amazon.ca/Great-Decision-Jefferson-Marshall-Supreme/dp/1586484265

[Dok]

Your argument lacks any basis in reality. But it does support the false narrative about "activist judges" which is a globalist plot to destroy the last branch of government the globalists do not yet control. That is why they assassinated Judge Roll. The only slander against the judge (who is a native and who was educated locally...gives her more of a credible say that the banksters raping the state of all resources) is a clever "Red State" yellow jorno piece that targets her son for being politically active: http://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/2011/03/21/wisconsin-judge-maryann-sumi-her-seiu-afl-cio-political-operative-son/

uhm, regardless to what any one else thinks, Senate Rule 93, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093, was in effect, and that makes what was done by the Wisconsin Senate and Govenor perfectly legal.

The Judge in this case has stopped this from being published by saying that the "Open Meetings Compliance Law" was violated. She isnt claiming anything else, and neither is anyone else in Wisconsin. This whole thing hangs on Senate Rule 93 and nothing else. All this really is is just a stall tactic so the unions can make final deals before this goes into effect.

[Dok]

Very wrong, in a republic the charter or constitution is the supreme law. It can only be altered or amended by a very complex and/or super majority election (ratification or amending) process, not by politicians, and is essentially a paper monarch. The sole interpreter of the laws new laws and supreme law is the (various levels of) courts.

Legislators can (and often do) easily pass laws that fail constitutional law testing by the courts. If a law is unconstitutional and the challenge to it is ruled valid by the courts it is null and void. Executive legislators have the least or practically no power at all other than to assent to the passage of a bill (as presented) into law, or refuse to (veto power) which is only operative after a bill is passed and before it is proclaimed as law, for the courts to test, enforce or rule as invalid.

Executives can and do circumvent both law and the courts by the use of illegal military "code"-fascist war powers which is why war can only be authorized by the legislature. For example it is illegal to order a person to risk death (suicidal act) unless they are a soldier at a time of war. It is illegal to have an army unless there is a war. Since WWII criminal fascists have perpetuated an illegal and nonexistent endless war to babysit their criminal nuclear toys.

The Executive does have two other very bad powers that screw the system up. They alone can pick and choose criminal sycophants as judges who they can depend upon to break the constitution and they can add as many criminal sycophant judges as they like (or need) to overrule any existing ones who get uppity and decide to do what's right. (there is no limit to the number of judges the Supreme Court can consist of - FDR used this, but the legislature must still "confirm" the appointments)

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=205075.msg1225700#msg1225700

do try to keep up...

[agentbluescreen]

uhm, regardless to what any one else thinks, Senate Rule 93, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093, was in effect, and that makes what was done by the Wisconsin Senate and Govenor perfectly legal.

The Judge in this case has stopped this from being published by saying that the "Open Meetings Compliance Law" was violated. She isnt claiming anything else, and neither is anyone else in Wisconsin. This whole thing hangs on Senate Rule 93 and nothing else. All this really is is just a stall tactic so the unions can make final deals before this goes into effect.

 A procedural rule for the proper conduct of a legislative debate does not override any existing law or the State Charter it can be just as unconstitutional and illegal as any other mere "bill", regardless of it's passage or it's addition to some "rule book". If the constitution requires a certain form of bill be openly debated or openly voted upon in a particular manner no mere rule that is not even a law has any relevance.

This is the bad fruit of the poisoned tree precedent.

This is sort of like the creating and granting to a President of "letters of marque" (crime licenses) - it must be done by both full legislative bodies in open session, one for each and every specific crime. (the secret intelligence committee is and has always been totally unconstitutional, but appointed-criminal CIA-fascist judicial sycophants will not even hear the case)

[Dok]

A procedural rule for the proper conduct of a legislative debate does not override any existing law or the State Charter it can be just as unconstitutional and illegal as any other mere "bill", regardless of passage or addition to some rule book.

The rules are part of the law for bill passages. We have the same thing in the US House and Senate. The "Open Meetings Compliance" is part of the "Rules" just as Rule 93 is.

[Dig]

uhm, regardless to what any one else thinks, Senate Rule 93, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093, was in effect, and that makes what was done by the Wisconsin Senate and Govenor perfectly legal.

The Judge in this case has stopped this from being published by saying that the "Open Meetings Compliance Law" was violated. She isnt claiming anything else, and neither is anyone else in Wisconsin. This whole thing hangs on Senate Rule 93 and nothing else. All this really is is just a stall tactic so the unions can make final deals before this goes into effect.

Do you know what the special session was for?

Here is the proclamation:

I, Scott Walker, Governor of the State of Wisconsin, pursuant to Article IV, Section 11, and Article V, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution, do hereby require the convening of a special session of the Legislature at the Capitol in Madison beginning at 10:00 a.m. on January 4, 2011, solely to consider and act upon legislation relating to the following:

1. Creation of an authority, to be known as the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, and making appropriations;

2. An income and franchise tax credit for small businesses;

3. Income and franchise tax exemptions for new businesses, providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures, and granting rule-making authority;

4. Adopting federal law as it relates to health savings accounts for state income and franchise tax purposes and providing a penalty;

5. Requiring a supermajority for passage of tax increase legislation;

6. The authority of a state agency to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by the agency and to implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold as a term or condition of a license issued by the state agency;

7. Limiting noneconomic damages awarded in actions against long-term care providers;

Now look at item 1 of Rule 93...

(1) No senate bill, senate joint resolution or senate resolution shall be considered unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the proclamation calling the special session or to the subjects enumerated by the committees on organization or in the joint resolution calling the extended or extraordinary session and is recommended for introduction by the committee on senate organization or by the joint committee on employment relations.

How the hell is union busting germane to that special session? If it is not germane, it has nothing to do with Rule 93. Rule 93 is for short term emergencies. It is a way to bipass beaurocracy to deal with an emergency quickly. Union busting is a long term theft of inaliencble rights. Governor Walker has done everything in his power to not adress emergencies by attaching long term theft of human rights with the short term fabricated emergency.

Patriot Act anyone? Same banksters using the same tricks.

[Dok]

Do you know what the special session was for?

Here is the proclamation:

I, Scott Walker, Governor of the State of Wisconsin, pursuant to Article IV, Section 11, and Article V, Section 4 of the Wisconsin Constitution, do hereby require the convening of a special session of the Legislature at the Capitol in Madison beginning at 10:00 a.m. on January 4, 2011, solely to consider and act upon legislation relating to the following:

1. Creation of an authority, to be known as the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation, and making appropriations;

2. An income and franchise tax credit for small businesses;

3. Income and franchise tax exemptions for new businesses, providing an exemption from emergency rule procedures, and granting rule-making authority;

4. Adopting federal law as it relates to health savings accounts for state income and franchise tax purposes and providing a penalty;

5. Requiring a supermajority for passage of tax increase legislation;

6. The authority of a state agency to promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of a statute enforced or administered by the agency and to implement or enforce any standard, requirement, or threshold as a term or condition of a license issued by the state agency;

7. Limiting noneconomic damages awarded in actions against long-term care providers;

Now look at item 1 of Rule 93...

(1) No senate bill, senate joint resolution or senate resolution shall be considered unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the proclamation calling the special session or to the subjects enumerated by the committees on organization or in the joint resolution calling the extended or extraordinary session and is recommended for introduction by the committee on senate organization or by the joint committee on employment relations.

How the hell is union busting germane to that special session? If it is not germane, it has nothing to do with Rule 93. Rule 93 is for short term emergencies. It is a way to bipass beaurocracy to deal with an emergency quickly. Union busting is a long term theft of inaliencble rights. Governor Walker has done everything in his power to not adress emergencies by attaching long term theft of human rights with the short term fabricated emergency.

Patriot Act anyone? Same banksters using the same tricks.

It doesent matter. A special session was called, Rule 93 was in play. The law was followed. You do not have to like it, heck a lot of Union People dont like it, but it was all legal.

The whole challenge to this isnt if the Bill is good, or the merits of the Bill, but is if the "Open Meetings Compliance" was compromised. Thats it. Nothing else. Under Rule 93 it wasnt. That's it, thats the whole case. Nothing more nothing less.

I dont care if your pro union or not, it matters not, this all hangs on procedural. And that was followed, and they know it.

[agentbluescreen]

The rules are part of the law for bill passages. We have the same thing in the US House and Senate. The "Open Meetings Compliance" is part of the "Rules" just as Rule 93 is.

Well I don't really know (haven't studied) what's the supreme law and what is just a law and what is just a rule here, but I'd assume the judge did. Apparently something was done in an improper manner, and/or what was (or how it was) done was (or appears to be) against the law.

[Dig]

It doesent matter. A special session was called, Rule 93 was in play. The law was followed. You do not have to like it, heck a lot of Union People dont like it, but it was all legal.

Why are you not understanding the following:

(1) No senate bill, senate joint resolution or senate resolution shall be considered unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the proclamation calling the special session

By exposing rule 93, you actually exposed why this bill is DOA in the first place. It is a non-emergency union busting bill which is also an abuse of power. It uses an emergency stipulation to conduct a crime and human rights violation.

The whole challenge to this isnt if the Bill is good, or the merits of the Bill, but is if the "Open Meetings Compliance" was compromised. Thats it. Nothing else. Under Rule 93 it wasnt. That's it, thats the whole case. Nothing more nothing less.

You present an interesting argument, but again it holds zero validity. Rule 93 was disobeyed, this is now confirmed twice even though for some reason you do not wish to read it.

I dont care if your pro union or not, it matters not, this all hangs on procedural. And that was followed, and they know it.

This has nothing to do with so called "pro-union" which is another bankster narrative to destroy this country with talking points. The procedural was not followed and nothing "all hangs on procedural". The constitution and the rights of man trump any procedural BS anyway.

If the senate and house unanimously passed a bill saying that you had to throw your baby out the window and it was signed by the executive and published...

WOULD IT BE LAW?

It would not because it defies the constitution, the founding docuemtns, common law, natural law, etc.

Any legislation that is unconstitutional is null and void. It is as if it was never written. This has been ruled over and over and over again, it is one of the very foundations of this republic.

[Dok]

Well I don't really know (haven't studied) what's the supreme law and what is just a law and what is just a rule here, but I'd assume the judge did. Apparently something was done improper manner, and/or what was done was (or appears to be) against the law.

No the whole thing is the "Open Meetings Compliance" which states that their had to be a 24 hour notice for the vote. Thats it, they IE: the Judge and Democratic Minority Leader Barca claim this was violated, as the notice was posted on the Senate Billbord for only 2 hours.

Thats it!!! Nothing else!!!!

Under Rule 93, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093, the notice only has to be posted on legislative bulletin boards. No where else and no time limit...

That is the whole thing, there is nothing more to this case.

Did they violate the law? No, they did not. Is a Judge personally holding this up? Yes yes she is.

[Dok]

Why are you not understanding the following:

(1) No senate bill, senate joint resolution or senate resolution shall be considered unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the proclamation calling the special session

If this was the case, than why arent the Judge and the Dems using it? Or for that matter the Unions and all the Liberal media? They are not using it because it doesent work.

By exposing rule 93, you actually exposed why this bill is DOA in the first place. It is a non-emergency union busting bill which is also an abuse of power. It uses an emergency stipulation to conduct a crime and human rights violation.

Again, than why arent they using this as their argument?

You present an interesting argument, but again it holds zero validity. Rule 93 was disobeyed, this is now confirmed twice even though for some reason you do not wish to read it.

Where was it disobeyed? No one is claiming your idea. Not the Judge, not the Dems, not the Unions, and not the Media. This rule was followed.

This has nothing to do with so called "pro-union" which is another bankster narrative to destroy this country with talking points. The procedural was not followed and nothing "all hangs on procedural". The constitution and the rights of man trump any procedural BS anyway.

Yes it does, this has everything to do with Unions. And please explain where the US Constitution comes into play in this? This is a State matter, this has nothing to do with the Federal Government or Fed Law. Union Rights isnt a RIGHT.

If the senate and house unanimously passed a bill saying that you had to throw your baby out the window and it was signed by the executive and published...

WOULD IT BE LAW?

It would not because it defies the constitution, the founding docuemtns, common law, natural law, etc.

Any legislation that is unconstitutional is null and void. It is as if it was never written. This has been ruled over and over and over again, it is one of the very foundations of this republic.

Well maybe the opposition in this should try that tactic. Seeing that they are not, it makes you wonder.

[agentbluescreen]

No the whole thing is the "Open Meetings Compliance" which states that their had to be a 24 hour notice for the vote. Thats it, they IE: the Judge and Democratic Minority Leader Barca claim this was violated, as the notice was posted on the Senate Billbord for only 2 hours.

Thats it!!! Nothing else!!!!

Under Rule 93, http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093, the notice only has to be posted on legislative bulletin boards. No where else and no time limit...

That is the whole thing, there is nothing more to this case.

Did they violate the law? No, they did not. Is a Judge personally holding this up? Yes yes she is.

How can you conclude this? 2 hours is not 24. The vote (that passed or sunk the motion or bill) would thus be illegal and invalid.

[Dok]

How can you conclude this? 2 hours is not 24. The vote (that passed or sunk the motion or bill) would thus be illegal and invalid.

Have you read Rule 93?

(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published.


http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093

They posted on the legislative bulletin board. They gave a 2 hour window just to give a notice.

[Dig]

If this was the case, than why arent the Judge and the Dems using it? Or for that matter the Unions and all the Liberal media? They are not using it because it doesent work. Again, than why arent they using this as their argument?

You are asking me why they are not using it? You are arguing on a legal and procedural front. Your argument has failed as anyone with an elementary education can read the rule and how it does not pertain. But now you are asking me why they do not point this out? How the hell do I know, let me reverse your argument and see how it looks...If your argument was true why did Governor Walker surrender? He surrendered because he knows the longer this drags on the more people will learn about the theft of constitutional rights by bankster puppets.

Where was it disobeyed? No one is claiming your idea. Not the Judge, not the Dems, not the Unions, and not the Media. This rule was followed.

What does that have to do with the wording? Why are you waiting for some left/right side to think for you? You can read...read what it says, it is right there.

Yes it does, this has everything to do with Unions. And please explain where the US Constitution comes into play in this? This is a State matter, this has nothing to do with the Federal Government or Fed Law. Union Rights isnt a RIGHT.

The constitution establishes the federal agent on behalf of the states with limited powers. The rest are given to the states which is defined in the 9th and 10th amendments. It is the law of the land and establishes the agreed charter from which all states have agreed to. The fact that this is a state matter is explained in the constitution. The constitution is not some "federal" document. It is the law of the land which sets up an agent for the states and sets up reinforced rights of man. Collective bargaining is  part of the first amendment right to assemble. It is a right, you cannot prevent the right to assemble and petition for grievances and that is what is being done.

Well maybe the opposition in this should try that tactic. Seeing that they are not, it makes you wonder.

Because they are not using this argument means that they are jesuit zionist reptilians from planet xenu? WTF? I am just stating what is constitutional and I have no clue what tactics they deem a priority. I am not going to govern their methods, I am just stating what the constitution states and that Governor Walker was forced to surrender because of the constituion. If there was no constitution, this never would have made one headline.

And as far as unions go and neocon rhetoric...never forget China, North Korea, and Soviet Russia never had a fricking union! Think about it. Collective bargaining is an inalienable right, it is what allows the people to never be ruled by a foreign oppressor disguised as a corporation ora foreign corporate controlled local government agency.

[Dig]

Have you read Rule 93?

(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published.


http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093

They posted on the legislative bulletin board. They gave a 2 hour window just to give a notice.

READ PART 1!

WTF?

How can you just read part 2 and ignore part 1?

[Dok]

READ PART 1!

WTF?

How can you just read part 2 and ignore part 1?

unless it is germane to the subjects enumerated by the governor in the proclamation calling the special session

He did that. No one is arguing this.

[Dig]

He did that. No one is arguing this.

I am arguing this, the full bill for which the special session was convened was broken out into two separate bills. The one denying collective bargaining rights was the one voted on. When they separated that bill which was not germane to the special session, rule 93 does not apply. And then go to the heart of Rule 93 which is to expedite legislation to deal with emergencies. The heart of the rule is abused for unconstitutional legislation. This may be an impeachable offense and it looks like Governor Walker has surrendered because of this additional liability he put on himself.

[Dig]

Have you read Rule 93?

(2) No notice of hearing before a committee shall be required other than posting on the legislative bulletin board, and no bulletin of committee hearings shall be published.


http://legis.wisconsin.gov/rules/SenateRules.html#Rule%2093

They posted on the legislative bulletin board. They gave a 2 hour window just to give a notice.

BTW...what does part 2 have to do with the actual legislation? It seems to relate only to the notice of a hearing (so that people can attend I guess) and the "bulletin of committee hearing". What does that have to do with a piece of legislation being required to be published.

[Dok]

I am arguing this, the full bill for which the special session was convened was broken out into two separate bills. The one denying collective bargaining rights was the one voted on. When they separated that bill which was not germane to the special session, rule 93 does not apply. And then go to the heart of Rule 93 which is to expedite legislation to deal with emergencies. The heart of the rule is abused for unconstitutional legislation. This may be an impeachable offense and it looks like Governor Walker has surrendered because of this additional liability he put on himself.

ok... we will just have to disagree on this.  

BTW...what does part 2 have to do with the actual legislation? It seems to relate only to the notice of a hearing (so that people can attend I guess) and the "bulletin of committee hearing". What does that have to do with a piece of legislation being required to be published.

Part 2 has everything to do with it. It states that they do not need to post a hearing for any amount of time. This is how they got around the 24 hour rule. Normally they need to post the vote for 24 hours, under a special session they do not.

[Dig]

ok... we will just have to disagree on this.  

It is not just that. The session was a joint session and Rule 93 pertains to a senate session. Lastly, Rule 93 itself may be construed as unconstitutional as a rule cannot be deemed constitutional if it supercedes a law. The open meetings law is a law and the senate rule 93 is a rule. The legislative body cannot enact a rule which supercedes a law.

Part 2 has everything to do with it. It states that they do not need to post a hearing for any amount of time. This is how they got around the 24 hour rule. Normally they need to post the vote for 24 hours, under a special session they do not.

Again, there are three procedural arguments on the rule 93 stuff and there is a more important argument on the use of emergency powers to steal billions from citizens of the united states while breaching their constitutionally reinforced inalienable rights.

[Dig]

‘No cop in the state’ would arrest WI Senate dems
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/04/02/no-cop-in-the-state-would-arrest-wi-senate-dems/
By David Ferguson
Saturday, April 2nd, 2011 -- 8:18 pm

Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald was warned by legal representatives of three separate state agencies that ordering state troopers to forcibly return senate democrats to Madison would place his actions in a zone "outside the law", according to the Wisconsin State Journal. The Journal has obtained memos and e-mail from Fitzgerald's office and the office of Sergeant-at-Arms Ted Blazel through a public records request.

Fitzgerald now admits in an interview with the Journal that his efforts to compel the Democrats back to the State House were "a mess" and that when he tried to give a statewide order for law enforcement to arrest the missing lawmakers, “There was no cop in the state that would enforce it.”

It was Fitzgerald who issued the controversial "call of the House" on February 17th, when Democratic senators fled the state to avoid a vote on Governor Scott Walker's bill curbing the collective bargaining rights of public employees. Three days after the walkout, Fitzgerald ordered state troopers to the residence of Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller, who wasn't at home. This prompted a dialogue between Fitzgerald's office and Wisconsin's Legislative Council and Legislative Reference Bureau concerning the legality of the Fitzgerald's actions.

The Majority Leader's office, however, sent troopers to state senators homes again four days later. It was when Fitzgerald attempted to use statewide police warrant verification network to issue an official "Order to Detain" the Democrats that the Wisconsin Department of Justice urged the Majority Leader and the Senate to drop the order rather than force law enforcement personnel to carry out acts that would ultimately prove to be illegal.

The State Journal: “We would strongly recommend that you attempt to get the Senate’s Order to Detain out of the system, i.e. to the extent possible indicate publicly that it has been withdrawn so that law enforcement do not rely upon it and attempt to enforce it, thereby creating unnecessary liability exposure to them and the state,” Kevin Potter, an assistant attorney general, said in a March 4 email.

Fitzgerald refused to back down. It was only when the Senate stripped out certain provisions of the bill allowing the Republicans to pass it with or without Democratic participation that the Majority Leader's office stopped trying to pressure state law enforcement to compel the Democrats back to Madison.

Fitzgerald said he continued to try to find ways to bring the missing lawmakers back to the capitol even when he knew that it was a futile endeavor. Nonetheless, he states that he has no regrets about his handling of the situation.

[Dok]

It is not just that. The session was a joint session and Rule 93 pertains to a senate session. Lastly, Rule 93 itself may be construed as unconstitutional as a rule cannot be deemed constitutional if it supercedes a law. The open meetings law is a law and the senate rule 93 is a rule. The legislative body cannot enact a rule which supercedes a law.

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: legislative rule
Function: noun
:  a rule adopted by a government agency in accordance with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act that has the force of law and imposes new duties on the regulated parties called also substantive rule  —compare INTERPRETIVE RULE

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legislative+rule

[Dig]

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: legislative rule
Function: noun
:  a rule adopted by a government agency in accordance with the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act that has the force of law and imposes new duties on the regulated parties called also substantive rule  —compare INTERPRETIVE RULE

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legislative+rule

Where does it say that it supercedes law?

[Dok]

Where does it say that it supercedes law?

that has the force of law and imposes new duties on the regulated parties called also substantive rule 

[Dig]

that has the force of law and imposes new duties on the regulated parties called also substantive rule 

That is if it does not conflict with standing law. Opens meeting law is a law, not a rule. A rule cannot supercede a law. The force of law is removed if it conflicts with standing law. This is like civics 101 stuff, wtf?

[Dok]

That is if it does not conflict with standing law. Opens meeting law is a law, not a rule. A rule cannot supercede a law. The force of law is removed if it conflicts with standing law. This is like civics 101 stuff, wtf?

Wisconsin Supreme court ruling, 2009.

¶18 WSEU first argues that we do not have jurisdiction to
review the legislature's compliance with Wis. Stat.
§ 111.92(1)(a) because it sets forth a legislative "rule of
proceeding." Article IV, Section 8 of the Wisconsin
Constitution states in pertinent part that "[e]ach house may
determine the rules of its own proceedings." Rules of
proceeding have been defined as those rules having "to do with
the process the legislature uses to propose or pass legislation
or how it determines the qualifications of its members."
Custodian of Records for the LTSB v. State, 2004 WI 65, ¶30, 272
Wis. 2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792. We have interpreted Article IV,
Section 8 to mean that the legislature's compliance with rules
of proceeding is exclusively within the province of the
legislature, because "a legislative failure to follow [its own]
procedural rules is equivalent to an ad hoc repeal of such
rules, which the legislature is free to do at any time." Id.,
¶28. Accordingly, courts will not intermeddle in purely
internal legislative proceedings, even when the proceedings at
issue are contained in a statute. State ex rel. La Follette v.
Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d 358, 364, 338 N.W.2d 684 (1983).

http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinions/07/pdf/07-1160.pdf

the Rules are laws that must be followed. Ever watch Cspan?

and according to this ruling, the courts cannot interfere with the internal rules.

[Dig]

Wisconsin Supreme court ruling, 2009.

¶18 WSEU first argues that we do not have jurisdiction to
review the legislature's compliance with Wis. Stat.
§ 111.92(1)(a) because it sets forth a legislative "rule of
proceeding." Article IV, Section 8 of the Wisconsin
Constitution states in pertinent part that "[e]ach house may
determine the rules of its own proceedings." Rules of
proceeding have been defined as those rules having "to do with
the process the legislature uses to propose or pass legislation
or how it determines the qualifications of its members."
Custodian of Records for the LTSB v. State, 2004 WI 65, ¶30, 272
Wis. 2d 208, 680 N.W.2d 792. We have interpreted Article IV,
Section 8 to mean that the legislature's compliance with rules
of proceeding is exclusively within the province of the
legislature, because "a legislative failure to follow [its own]
procedural rules is equivalent to an ad hoc repeal of such
rules, which the legislature is free to do at any time." Id.,
¶28. Accordingly, courts will not intermeddle in purely
internal legislative proceedings, even when the proceedings at
issue are contained in a statute. State ex rel. La Follette v.
Stitt, 114 Wis. 2d 358, 364, 338 N.W.2d 684 (1983).

http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinions/07/pdf/07-1160.pdf

the Rules are laws that must be followed. Ever watch Cspan?

and according to this ruling, the courts cannot interfere with the internal rules.

Ever read what you post? Again you are adding more evidence of a violation of Rule 93 as it only pertains to the Senate yet it was a joint session:

"[e]ach house may determine the rules of its own proceedings."

Additionally, Rule 93 does not pertain to the Bill in question as the bill was not germane to the emergency session. It was stripped out of the emergency bill and lost any relevance to the emergency session.

And lastly, the courts are not interfering with the rules of proceedings, the judge is ruling to uphold the state constitution which includes an open meetings law.

So there are three reasons proceedurally the argument is ridiculous. Then there is the anti-constitutional insanity of depriving a state the first amendment. That is why Walker surrendered, his bankster controllers are getting scared to death that people actually understand the constitution.

[Dig]

Indiana prosecutor told Wisconsin governor to stage ‘false flag’ operation
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/24/indiana-prosecutor-told-wisconsin-governor-to-stage-false-flag-operation/
By Eric W. Dolan
Thursday, March 24th, 2011 -- 7:32 pm

An Indiana prosecutor and Republican activist has resigned after emails show he suggested Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stage a fake attack on himself to discredit unions protesting his budget repair bill. The Republican governor signed a bill on March 11 that eliminates most union rights for public employees.

In an email from February 19, Indiana deputy prosecutor Carlos F. Lam told Walker the situation presented...

"a good opportunity for what’s called a ‘false flag’ operation."

The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism discovered the email among tens of thousands released to the public last week following a lawsuit by the Isthmus and the Associated Press. "If you could employ an associate who pretends to be sympathetic to the unions' cause to physically attack you (or even use a firearm against you), you could discredit the unions," Lam said in his email. "Currently, the media is painting the union protest as a democratic uprising and failing to mention the role of the DNC and umbrella union organizations in the protest," he continued. "Employing a false flag operation would assist in undercutting any support that the media may be creating in favor of the unions." Lam resigned from his position after the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism published an article about his email.

On February 22, an alternative paper in Buffalo, New York managed to trick Walker into taking a call from their editor posing as tea party tycoon David Koch. When the editor posing as Koch suggested planting some troublemakers in the protests, Walker responded that "we thought about that," but said it was not necessary "because sooner or later the media stops finding ’em interesting." "My only fear would be is if there was a ruckus caused is that that would scare the public into thinking maybe the governor has gotta settle to avoid all these problems," he said. Walker had promised to lay off 1,500 state workers if the bill to curb collective bargaining rights for public employees didn't pass. In mid-February, 14 Democratic state senators left Wisconsin to stall a vote on the bill. There are 19 Republican senators, but the Senate needs a minimum of 20 members to be present to debate and vote on any bills that spend money. While the 14 Democratic senators remained in Illinois, Republican state senators removed all references to spending from the bill and passed the proposal to limit public employees' collective bargaining rights. Wisconsin citizens upset withWalker's attack on public employees' collective bargaining rights have launched a boycott campaign aimed at his campaign contributors.

[Dok]

Ever read what you post? Again you are adding more evidence of a violation of Rule 93 as it only pertains to the Senate yet it was a joint session:

"[e]ach house may determine the rules of its own proceedings."

Additionally, Rule 93 does not pertain to the Bill in question as the bill was not germane to the emergency session. It was stripped out of the emergency bill and lost any relevance to the emergency session.

And lastly, the courts are not interfering with the rules of proceedings, the judge is ruling to uphold the state constitution which includes an open meetings law.

So there are three reasons proceedurally the argument is ridiculous. Then there is the anti-constitutional insanity of depriving a state the first amendment. That is why Walker surrendered, his bankster controllers are getting scared to death that people actually understand the constitution.

all they have to do is re-vote. end of story. they arent because they are going to win the court case. even if they loose, they will just have a re-vote. This is what this guy ran on and was elected on. SO really this whole argument is moot, no matter which way it falls. As they will just have a re-vote.

Here in Ohio we are just passing the law, and then it will be challanged in Nov. to be confirmed or denied by a general vote of the people. maybe its just Wisconsin and there odd laws.

[Dig]

all they have to do is re-vote. end of story. they arent because they are going to win the court case. even if they loose, they will just have a re-vote. This is what this guy ran on and was elected on. SO really this whole argument is moot, no matter which way it falls. As they will just have a re-vote.

He did not run on this, that is not true. This is now like the 5th untrue thing you have stated as fact. The judge is not an activist judge, but an ethical and moral example who was elected 3 times and she is going to be re-elected for a forth term unopposed. She is local and went to school in state. She is the target of a smear campaign by insane people using her son for political gain. The rule 93 has 3 procedural issues and a few constitutional issues. The bargaining rights of individuals is constitutionally protected.

And the fact that they need to revote this again reinforces the procedural items as flaky at best.

Here in Ohio we are just passing the law, and then it will be challanged in Nov. to be confirmed or denied by a general vote of the people. maybe its just Wisconsin and there odd laws.

Ohio has other issues in dealing with offshore banksters taking more and more control, but that is a good form of legislative process IMO.

[chris jones]

You guys are sharp & infrormed..The truth is I feel pretty dumb reading this..therfore I admire your guys.

What I get out of this, the CONSTITUTION  is being mentioned publically, what this country is all about.