Thread: Unanimous Consent - the way Senate secretly passed bills.

According to Senator DeMint, over 800 bills were passed during the wee hours of the night that were neither debated or received an up or down vote on the Senate floor. This was normal procedure for doing such things as praising a baseball player and things like that that would take up valuable floor time during a full session. Now, the Unanimous Consent ploy is being used to pass legislation that will cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Worst part, it is done without public knowledge....secretly. Does this tell you something about Harry Reid? Does this tell you that we are getting close to a one party system in the United States? Better do some research and practice your civic duty by hounding your Congressmen and Congresswomen to do what you sent them to Washington to do, represent their constituents....you. They took an oath of office and swore to abide by defend the Constitution. All of the Democrats are bent on destroying our freedoms granted under the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments.

Welcome JoeHollinger.

Yes, they vote on bills they haven't read. Unbelievable isn't it?

And, agree, there is practically one party now. The Reps look more like the Dems everyday and now with the Dems in control they have all kinds of methods to secure their hold. Amnesty would be one way.

They need to be reminded they work for us. Just hope enough citizens wake up and realize what is going on. Can't depend on the MSM to report it. Thank goodness for the internet.

Welcome to ALIPAC JoeHollinger

Can you get us a source and or link on that information please. I would like to look into this material, but I need your source.

W

W. see the paragraph below preceded by This is the information I referenced in my post:

One source for a definition is Thomas which provides the following definition:

"UNANIMOUS CONSENT Unanimous consent refers to the practice of agreeing to an action without dissent or objection by any Member.

A request for unanimous consent either expressly or implicitly asks for permission to act outside of or contrary to one or more House or Senate rules, and is usually used, on the floor or in committee, to speed up proceedings.

The Senate relies on unanimous consent agreements more heavily than the House because the Senate has few other rules of procedure to expedite the conduct of its business. When a Senator makes a unanimous consent request, the Presiding Officer asks, "Is there objection?" If no Senator objects, the Presiding Officer then announces that, "Without objection, it is so ordered." However, any Senator may object to any unanimous consent request. If a Senator does object, the Senate continues to operate under the terms of its regular rules. Sometimes a Senator will "reserve the right to object" to a unanimous consent request in order to ask that the request be clarified or modified in some way. The Senator who reserves the right to object ultimately does object or withdraws his or her reservation.

Likewise in the House, when a Member makes a unanimous consent request, the Speaker usually puts the question to the House: "Is there objection to the request?" In response, any Representative can object or reserve the right to object. Also in the House, the Speaker may object to any unanimous consent request, but he usually just refuses to even entertain requests to which he objects, especially requests to bring up measures for immediate floor consideration if those requests have not already been cleared with majority and minority party leadership.

When there appears to be no opposition to a bill or amendment that either the House or Senate is considering, the Member who is presiding sometimes will state that, "Without objection, the bill is passed [or the amendment is agreed to]." This is a way to expedite final action on the bill or amendment without conducting a formal vote. When the Member presiding makes such a statement, however, any other Member can object and require that a formal vote be conducted."

http://www.wikio.com/video/755955?infoid=86212156

http://www.wikio.com/video/347162?infoid=66366582

http://www.wikio.com/video/70579?infoid=58062045

http://www.wikio.com/video/354614?infoid=66668773

http://www.wikio.com/video/313548?infoid=63633494

http://www.wikio.com/video/216515?infoid=56015747

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unanimous_consent

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/jan/26/00014/

"In the Senate, support for the resolution was absolute across party and ideological lines. Its chief sponsors were Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Not a single senator—not one—expressed opposition, so there was no need for a roll-call vote. On Jan. 8, as images of a burning Gaza were being broadcast around the world, the Senate approved the resolution by unanimous consent, without objection."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-01-19.html

"Senate considers unanimous-consent on Obama Cabinet
By J. Taylor Rushing
Posted: 01/19/09 07:13 PM [ET]The Senate on Tuesday is expected to attempt unanimous-approval votes of President-elect Obama’s Cabinet nominees, but it is uncertain who will be cleared by the upper chamber on Inauguration Day."

http://www.wisegeek.com/in-the-us-co...us-consent.htm

"One further distinction in unanimous consent in Congress needs to be made. Unanimous consent can only refer to the members of Congress that are present. A person, who objects to something but is not there to object, essentially has no vote, and is not considered in deciding unanimous consent."

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/How_Unanimous_Consent_Agreements_Regulate_Senate_F loor%20_Action.pdf

http://opencrs.com/document/RL33939/2007-03-26

http://tabacco.blog-city.com/unanimo...lou_dobbs_.htm

"Unanimous Consent should be retained only for innocuous, non finance-related subjects. Whoever controls the Senate can attempt to bypass Objections with devious tactics. Therefore, someone, without Political affiliations and NOT SELECTED by Congress, must approve any Bill before Unanimous Consent can be called for. And that individual must be rotated frequently to forestall the bribery opportunity.

Before you listen to anyone, who says Unanimous Consent is both necessary and useful, remember that those options available to good Congresses and great presidents are also available to bad Congresses and awful presidents. It’s those bad Congresses and awful presidents, who abuse everything and find all the loopholes through which they slime their way to personal profit and long careers. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours is most effectively deployed by the Mafia and the US Congress. That’s how Compromise, Negotiation & Business gets done in Congress - just like in la Cosa Nostra. Therefore it MUST BE WRONG!"

This is the information I referenced in my post:

"....SEN. JIM DEMINT (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: Well, if Americans ever wonder why so much bad stuff comes out of Congress, this is one of the reasons. And the Democrat majority has taken this to a new level. 94 percent of the bills that have passed in this Congress have been by unanimous consent.

And some of them were really big bills. And they've gotten to the point where they expect us to give consent to huge bills like the $50 billion foreign aid bill that passed last week. They pressured me and Dr. Coburn and others for weeks to give unanimous consent for it to pass without a vote.

They did the same thing with this huge housing bailout. They wanted it unanimous consent without a vote. And so what Senator Reid, the Democrat leader, is doing now, is taking a number of these bills that Senator Coburn has been asking for an open debate on, and packaging them up and they're going to try to ram them through without debate.

And, so I think it's time for Americans to realize that this secret way to move bills through, it's OK for post office. But it's not OK when these bills include $1.5 billion for the metro or $24 million to the United Nations.

PILGRIM: Well, absolutely. It's insane.

You know Senator Harry Reid said it's a stunt, that this is the way -- this isn't news.
Tabacco: It’s not a stunt; it is just selective reporting!

What do you have to say to that? I mean why aren't more members of Congress actually speaking out, is what I have to ask.

DEMINT: Well, I think it's the way that a lot of senior members have done business for years. They wait for us to leave on the weekend and then they try to hot line these bills when only our staffs are here. And if you object, they're very indignant about it. ...."

Joe Hollinger


The following link is to a video of Sen DeMint introducing the Broadcasters Freedom Act. It covers important points on violation of the Constitution by the Senate and House. Not directly related to Unanimous Consent.

http://demint.senate.gov/public/inde...urnal.BlogHome

Originally Posted by jean

Welcome JoeHollinger.

Yes, they vote on bills they haven't read. Unbelievable isn't it?

And, agree, there is practically one party now. The Reps look more like the Dems everyday and now with the Dems in control they have all kinds of methods to secure their hold. Amnesty would be one way.

They need to be reminded they work for us. Just hope enough citizens wake up and realize what is going on. Can't depend on the MSM to report it. Thank goodness for the internet.

jean

You made a statement

Thank goodness for the Internet

I am sorry to inform you that the Internet may take a serious hit in the area of freedom of speech right along with talk radio and other public information media including the Internet.

Use the following url to read up on legislation that was passed by the Senate on Feb. 26, 2009 that if passed by the House and signed by the President will totally ignore the Constitution and weaken the First Amendment right to Freedom of Speech as well as weaken the Constitution further by granting Washington D.C. a seat in the House. Washington D.C. is not part of the United States and is not entitled to representation in Congress.

Congress has decided not to honor their oaths of office and are now making decisions based on their (or Pelosi's and Reid's) opinions.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amen...=111&amdt=s591

Senator Jim DeMint also sponsored Amendment 573 To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from re-promulgating the fairness doctrine.
Proposed: Feb 25, 2009. Accepted: Feb 26, 2009.
Feb 26, 2009. Amendment SA 573 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 87 - 11. Record Vote Number: 71.

In his speech on the floor of the Senate, Senator DeMint said his amendment was to prevent things like those contained in the Fairness Doctrine from stifling the freedom of speech of talk radio hosts and other forms of public media. His amendment also was passed by the Senate.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amen...=111&amdt=s573
This amendment must also pass in the House and be signed by Obama.

I don't see one of them making it passed Obama. Do you suppose it might be the one presented by Senator DeMint, a Republican?