Hey, Nancy, how about a light?

[bolverk]

In all the time I lived in Sonoma County, I only got to meet one U.S. Representative in person. He came to my elementary school to present us a flag that flew over the White House. He spoke with us all on a personal level. His name was Donald H. Clausen.

I have seen Lynn C. Woolsey, the first time was after the Polly Klass tragedy. She was flanked by Barbara and Diane. But, to be fair, I also saw here at another photo op, the 24 hour relay at Casa Grande High one year. However, I did not get an opportunity to share views with her.

Donald H. Clausen was and is a huge supporter of higher education. He was replaced by Douglas H. Bosco in 1982, and education has suffered ever since. Why is that?

[bolverk]

To get back on topic, and to the Constitution, the President can force congress to reconvene, and they must do so if he tells them to until they pass an energy bill. In fact, he could find them in contempt if they do not, most likely. It is regulated by one of the four sections of the Constitution that covers the office of President, section 3 to me more precise.

Article. II. - The Executive Branch

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

[bolverk]

I would call both the housing crisis and the energy crisis extraordinary, especially the energy crisis.

[jgaffney]

Check these YouTube videos:

Nancy "Lights Out" Pelosi

Adjourned Without A Plan

[The Big Dog]

Aug 6, 2008 20:53:19 GMT -5 subdjoe said:

Re: felons voting. My feeling is that once a person has "paid his debt to society" and is no longer under any supervision or any court mandated disability, full rights should be automatically restored - voting, gun ownership, the works. If a person is still a danger to society, then they should not be out of prison. Or not without supervision.

I know, a bit extreem. But, that is my take on it.

This is a great idea until practically examined.

Felons who are still a danger to society, physically or economically, are released all the time under the supervision of parole. And those who aren't released to parole are released at the conclusion of their sentence, whether they are "rehabilitated" or not.

Do you honestly want some career armed robber to be able, simply because "he did his time" to walk into a store and purchase firearms lawfully? Can you guess what he's going to do with them?

If a felon gets on the straight and narrow post parole / release and a competent court finds that they merit restoration of rights, then fine. However, IMHO, no person found guilty of a felonious crime of violence against another person should ever have their right to possess firearms restored. They've proven that they are incapable of properly exercising that responsibility in the first place so why in heaven's name should it be given back.

This is one of the few areas where the Libertarian arguments go right off the rails and into a ditch. And it's where I part company with many of my Libertarian brethern.

[subdjoe]

response to The Big Dog in new thread - Of felons and firearms in this topic

[jgaffney]

It's time to wake this thread up again, because Congress is back in session and, true to her word, Speaker Pelosi allowed an energy bill to come to the floor. If all you read was the AP, you would think that the issue has been resolved because the ban on offshore drilling has been lifted.

However, the devil, as they say, is in the details. The federal moratorium is lifted on offshore areas between 50 and 100 miles from the coast as long as the adjacent state agrees. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval is required. There is nothing in the bill about the near-shore areas, nothing in royalties for the adjacent states, and outright bans on drilling in Alaska's North Slope and in the Inter-Mountain Region.

The part that you definitely won't read about tomorrow morning in the PeeDee is explained in a statement on the Minority Leader's website:

With today’s floor debate, Speaker Pelosi has designed yet another cynical strategy that enables vulnerable Democrats to claim they support more American energy back in their districts but then vote against it here in Washington. In rigging today’s debate on the Speaker’s latest ‘no energy’ bill, Democrats have made an open and honest debate impossible for those who support an ‘all of the above’ approach to reduce fuel costs. In fact, last night at the Rules Committee, Republicans offered a proposal to open up today’s debate to enable a real vote on our ‘all of the above’ American Energy Act, and Democrats voted it down. The Majority has even gone so far as to begin debate on their sham bill today while several Members of the Texas delegation are still home with their constituents, helping in the recovery effort after Hurricane Ike.

Written behind closed doors, with their special interest allies who are on the record in support of higher gas prices, and finally released to the public in the dark of night, the Democrats’ latest ‘no energy’ bill once again defies the will of the American people who support a comprehensive approach to lower gas prices. This Democratic bill permanently locks away some 88 percent of the best American oil resources on the Outer Continental Shelf. It blocks valuable and job-creating energy production on Alaska’s North Slope and Inter-Mountain West. And it stops efforts to produce more and cheaper energy through emissions-free nuclear and coal-to-liquids technologies. Rather than an ‘all of the above’ approach, this bill is very nearly ‘none of the above.’ The American people have been waiting for months for this Democratic Congress to give them a meaningful, honest vote on more American energy production, but instead, Speaker Pelosi has served-up a legislative hoax and a debate rigged to once again defy their will.

There's no politics like dirty politics, right? Let's make sure that Pelosi does not get a pass on this one.

[jgaffney]

If anyone doubts that this whole action was a sham, just take a look at the House Rules Committee's website, where they list the meeting on how to roll out the Energy Bill as being held at 10:45 pm on Monday night, the day before the bill was scheduled for a floor vote.

At the midnight meeting, the Committee passed H.Res.1433, which lays out the rules for consideration of the bill by the whole House. No points of order will be allowed, which means no amendments. The resolution says that the bill shall be considered as read, which means that the bill was never read aloud in the House, something that is normally done with every other bill.

This is a sham energy bill which will, hopefully, die in the Senate, where more reasonable rules of debate prevail. Speaker Pelosi will crow that she tried to do something to "fix" our energy "problem," while, in reality, all she wanted to do was punt the issue past January. How does it make you feel to know that the Speaker thinks so little of you?

[jgaffney]

John Shadegg (R-AZ) has this at the Wall Street Journal:

After a five-week paid vacation, Democrats are back in Washington and claiming that they want to do something about oil prices.

But the problem is that their plan, which passed the House yesterday and will likely come up for a vote in the Senate later this week, will not produce a single drop of oil.

Why? Because it does nothing about environmental groups that are suing to stop drilling.

The Democratic proposal is not a death-bed conversion, it's designed to solve their political problem. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told her members in August that they can say they are in favor of drilling, but that she wouldn't allow a vote on a drilling bill. Now that she has been forced to, she knows her environmental allies will block new drilling from going forward.
.......
In February 2008, the administration issued 487 leases in Alaska's Chukchi Sea, which holds an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil and 76 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The Sierra Club, the Center for Biological Diversity, and other groups used the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act to challenge and delay progress on all 487 leases. In a separate lawsuit, they challenged the entire national outer continental shelf (OCS) leasing program, seeking to block all future leases.

Even if a lease makes it through these challenges, it isn't clear sailing. Right now, there are 748 leases in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Exploration activities in every single one were challenged in May of this year by EarthJustice in conjunction with others.

The Alaskan OCS contains 26 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Not one offshore lease has escaped litigation.

And it's not just Alaska. Wild Earth Guardians and others recently filed suit to block energy exploration on all leases in recent sales in Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas. Last year, almost 50% of gas leases in the Rocky Mountain states were protested in court.

Environmental protections are necessary. But, there must be reasonable limits on litigation.
........
We're told that the Democrats now favor drilling. That they have seen the light after feeling the heat all summer. What's really happening is we're mid-way through a political hoax.

Some 70% of Americans favor increased domestic drilling. Unfortunately, if Mrs. Pelosi and her party's leaders continue to play politics, we can be sure Americans won't get the energy they want.

We can't let Madame Speaker get away with this travesty.

[The Big Dog]

Sept 17, 2008 13:57:26 GMT -5 jgaffney said:

We can't let Madame Speaker get away with this travesty.

I'd wager that the debate in the Senate might be far more spirited, and the bill could possibly get amended. If that happens then it would have to go conference and then back through the House and Senate.

If Leader Reid is able to push it through as is on a party line vote (which the House vote largely was), then Bush is going to have to man up and use the veto pen. If he does veto it his veto message will have to make the case very, very clearly and strongly that this was a horsecrap bill designed only to make the Democrats look like they cared.

I don't hold a lot of hope out for that in an election year, but you never know.

[bolverk]

Yeah, it was a party line vote alright, considering the majority is 235-199 and the vote was 236-189, something really stinks here.

[jgaffney]

The bottom is about to drop out of this issue in the Senate. This is from The Hill:

Senators on Wednesday suggested there may be too many competing proposals and too little political will for a last-minute breakthrough on energy legislation before the Senate adjourns for the year.

The grim prognosis came as senators reacted to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) strategy of holding votes on four separate energy bills in the final week before lawmakers recess on Sept. 26.

House members voted 236-189 to expand offshore drilling as part of a broader energy bill — but that bill has few backers in the upper chamber.

Few senators expressed optimism that the two parties could resolve deep disagreements in such a compressed, politically charged atmosphere, especially with 60-vote thresholds likely necessary. Reid himself suggested a lame-duck session after the Nov. 4 elections might be necessary if the issue cannot be resolved.

“It would definitely be the triumph of hope over experience,” said Sen. John Thune (S.D.), the GOP’s chief deputy whip. “The Democrats will run their bill, the Republicans will run our bill, none of them will reach 60, and my guess is that’s where everything stops.”

So, Congress has to do something by Sept 30, or the offshore moratorium will expire. We can expect a continuing resolution to punt the issue beyond January.