Chicago Style Politics Expands to the State of Illinois

[Edie Lindsey]

Now that the Ex-Governor of Illinois, who allegedly tried to peddle the Senate seat of President Obama, is almost out of sight in the rearview and going to jail, the lame-duck legislature has decided to create new revenue for the state by increasing the state personal income tax by 66%.  Corporation taxes are also scheduled to be raised. 

This unprecedented rate hike, passed by the soon-to-be-minority Democratic Party of Illinois, just shows how deaf these jokers are to the actual problems we all face in our everyday life.  I hope the new people repeal this nonsense, unless some of the jobs they lose come here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110112/ap_on_bi_ge/us_illinois_taxes

[Dave]

Just when you think they couldn't get any dumber, they do something like that and prove that indeed they can be dumber.

If they want to send companies and jobs fleeing to other states and countries, they are off to a great start. On the upside, the surrounding states might benefit from the stupidity of the IL congressmen. With any luck, with the help of our new governor maybe Michigan gains some of what IL looses.

[Willy]

Not suprised.

[XLFD]

I seem to remember a time when lame duck legislatures, especially disgraced lame-duck-legislatures-whose-party-just-went-down-to-a-crushing-defeat, did not pass such sweeping legislation on their way out.  I think it's about time legislators at all levels of government make rules to stop such attacks on democracy.  For how else can you paint such actions by Illinois and the Federal H of R congressmen?

[AQUAMAN]

Maybe the name Lame Duck should now be replaced with "Daffy Duck" sessions. Like they say, you can't fix STUPID!

[Edie Lindsey]

A rule to stop lame ducks from introducing or advancing any bills after the election they lost would be a danm good start. 

No that isn't a misspelling, I'm just introducing a new Ning swear word that is a dig to my good friend Dan M.

[Willy]

Legislation to restrict law makers from participating in the legislative process would be Unconstitutional. Anyone elected to any office has the right to perform the duties of their office until their term runs out.

[XLFD]

I disagree, RJE.  Article I, Section 5 of that document says:  "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings...".  Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the Congress from passing laws that restrict its own powers, that I can see.  Whether they would actually do so, is highly doubtful.  Two benefits I can see for restricting non-emergency lame duck votes to already pending issues is to get the congressman to commit to what may be unpopular issues before the election, instead of waiting for a small time period after the election when the political dynamic is about to change.  The other is to respect the popular mandate. 

Ideally, we would not need the rule, and the lame duck would fly silently into the sunset as their house changes leadership.  But nowadays, neither party's lame ducks are doing so.

[Willy]

XLFD

Section 5 - Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

Section 5 is referring to [Rules of its[Congress] Proceedings]. Not it's members rights to represent the voters except to expel an individual member for disorderly behavior. 

 

 

 

 

The very first section of Artricle one of the Constitution states:

Section 1 - All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 1 clearly grants power to the legislature  which is composed of our representatives. The Constitution would have to be changed to prohibit lame duck sessions from doing their Constitutional duties.

 

The only process to deny an elected official from performing their duties would be impeachment.