Comments on: In defense of secret holds http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/ Politics, policy, media, culture...missives from Capitol Hill Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:02:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Tim http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3190 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:04:31 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3190 Jon, your point about the constitution is absolutely correct...although I think it may be lost on Mr. Wretched Refuse. Jon, your point about the constitution is absolutely correct…although I think it may be lost on Mr. Wretched Refuse.

]]> by: Jon http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3189 Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:46:09 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3189 Perhaps this is too far after the fact to even be read, but it's not unconstitutional; the Constitution specifically says that the Senate can establish its own rules of procedure. Since this is a Senate rule, it's also not illegal. It is, of course, surreptitious, but I think the point of this article is that, while the hold may be secret, it increases government transparency rather than the opposite but granting "whistleblowers" in the Senate anonymity. Whether it was only Stevens or also Byrd, perhaps these massive pork-masters were hoping that the public would get excited about the bill and make sure that the Senate didn't vote it down quietly? I don't believe it either, but perhaps this episode was more benign than first glance would tell us. Perhaps this is too far after the fact to even be read, but it’s not unconstitutional; the Constitution specifically says that the Senate can establish its own rules of procedure. Since this is a Senate rule, it’s also not illegal. It is, of course, surreptitious, but I think the point of this article is that, while the hold may be secret, it increases government transparency rather than the opposite but granting “whistleblowers” in the Senate anonymity. Whether it was only Stevens or also Byrd, perhaps these massive pork-masters were hoping that the public would get excited about the bill and make sure that the Senate didn’t vote it down quietly? I don’t believe it either, but perhaps this episode was more benign than first glance would tell us.

]]> by: Wretched Refuse http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3177 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:20:28 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3177 <strong>EDITED BY MODERATOR </strong> You are %$#% nuts. THere is no construct for a rightful HOLD and derfinately NOT a SECRET &^%$ing hold. You appplogista are *&^%ing sickening. YOu control all the branches, and yet you claim that in defense of \"liberal\" spending bills that there needs to be this unconsitutional, illegal, and seerupticious holding of legislation because one of you *&$#@s can\'t let the world know how (*&^ing corrupt your truly are. GET A (*&^ing CLUE. GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE AFRAID OF IT CITIZENS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. EDITED BY MODERATOR 

You are %$#% nuts.
THere is no construct for a rightful HOLD and derfinately NOT a SECRET &^%$ing hold.
You appplogista are *&^%ing sickening. YOu control all the branches, and yet you claim that in defense of \”liberal\” spending bills that there needs to be this unconsitutional, illegal, and seerupticious holding of legislation because one of you *&$#@s can\’t let the world know how (*&^ing corrupt your truly are.
GET A (*&^ing CLUE.
GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE AFRAID OF IT CITIZENS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

]]> by: Tim http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3176 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:03:19 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3176 Rightwingprof, Holds are only secret for 72 hours. After 72 hours the sponsor of the bill that is being held is told who the holder is. I am ok with slowing down legislation for 72 hours and I am ok with the fact that often times the holder will be secret for that period of time. Legislation moves too fast up there under the dome anyway. What I would not be ok with is indefinite secret holds. Rightwingprof,

Holds are only secret for 72 hours. After 72 hours the sponsor of the bill that is being held is told who the holder is. I am ok with slowing down legislation for 72 hours and I am ok with the fact that often times the holder will be secret for that period of time.

Legislation moves too fast up there under the dome anyway.

What I would not be ok with is indefinite secret holds.

]]> by: rightwingprof http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3171 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:20:48 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3171 You're confusing the hold with the secrecy. The secrecy is the problem, and should be abolished. You’re confusing the hold with the secrecy. The secrecy is the problem, and should be abolished.

]]> by: TimChapmanBlog.com » Blog Archive » More on secret holds http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3170 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 13:16:30 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3170 [...] About &#171; In defense of secret holds [...] […] About « In defense of secret holds […]

]]> by: Mike Liveright http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3166 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:45:52 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3166 1) It may be that it is acceptable to have a single senator hold on a bill, though I wonder why any single senator should have such power, BUT... 1.1) The hold should be PUBLIC so that if a senator wants to hold a bill their name should be available to us. 1.2) The hold should be limited to a short time, say a week, and should be able to be overriden by, say a 1/3-rds vote. 2) Certainly all bills, amendments, conferance comprimises, etc. should be availabe on the web at least 3 days (thought I think a month may be too long) before they are voted upon so that we can review them and point out any problems to our representatives. 3) Finally, of course the original bill: S.2590 should be approved!!! 1) It may be that it is acceptable to have a single senator hold on a bill, though I wonder why any single senator should have such power, BUT…

1.1) The hold should be PUBLIC so that if a senator wants to hold a bill their name should be available to us.

1.2) The hold should be limited to a short time, say a week, and should be able to be overriden by, say a 1/3-rds vote.

2) Certainly all bills, amendments, conferance comprimises, etc. should be availabe on the web at least 3 days (thought I think a month may be too long) before they are voted upon so that we can review them and point out any problems to our representatives.

3) Finally, of course the original bill: S.2590 should be approved!!!

]]> by: Adjoran http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3163 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:10:37 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3163 Congratulations, Mr. Chapman! One of the most difficult things in politics, or in life, is to remain calm and consider all the ramifications admidst a popular uprising. In fact, this was one of the main roles envisioned for the Senate by the Founders. Most of the byzantine and often bizzare-sounding Senate rules, including holds, filibusters, and various courtesies, are solely designed to slow things down a bit. While perhaps apocryphal, an old legend tells of Jefferson objecting to the bicameral form to Washington. He demanded of the General, "Why do we need the Senate?" Washington allegedly replied, "For the same reason I stir sugar into my coffee: to cool it. And so, we need the Senate." As an aside, for many years I wondered if the Father of our Country was in full possession of his faculties here. You stir sugar into your coffee to SWEETEN it, not to cool it, do you not? A few years ago, an article on etiquette in Colonial times explained it all. It was considered rude to simply stir one's coffee with a spoon, so the motion of dipping the spoon into the sugar bowl was made, even if picking up only a few granules, to "cover" the act of stirring to cool the coffee. Thus, Washington was not only right, but proper about it! ;-) Congratulations, Mr. Chapman!

One of the most difficult things in politics, or in life, is to remain calm and consider all the ramifications admidst a popular uprising. In fact, this was one of the main roles envisioned for the Senate by the Founders. Most of the byzantine and often bizzare-sounding Senate rules, including holds, filibusters, and various courtesies, are solely designed to slow things down a bit.

While perhaps apocryphal, an old legend tells of Jefferson objecting to the bicameral form to Washington. He demanded of the General, “Why do we need the Senate?”

Washington allegedly replied, “For the same reason I stir sugar into my coffee: to cool it. And so, we need the Senate.”

As an aside, for many years I wondered if the Father of our Country was in full possession of his faculties here. You stir sugar into your coffee to SWEETEN it, not to cool it, do you not?

A few years ago, an article on etiquette in Colonial times explained it all. It was considered rude to simply stir one’s coffee with a spoon, so the motion of dipping the spoon into the sugar bowl was made, even if picking up only a few granules, to “cover” the act of stirring to cool the coffee. Thus, Washington was not only right, but proper about it!

;-)

]]> by: Julian Morrison http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3160 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:55:24 +0000 http://timchapmanblog.com/2006/08/29/sessions-the-hold-is-a-good-thing/#comment-3160 I propose that you're recommending the wrong tool for the job. A secret hold isn't the best way to make sure bad bills get noticed and dropped. The best way would be the polar opposite: a mandatory public viewing period. All bills to be published on the open internet as readable HTML, a month before they come to the floor. Emergency rush bills to be permitted as exceptions, with the restriction that a rush bill can't appropriate funds except for defense, must sunset in not more than one year, and that its re-passage may not be rushed. I propose that you’re recommending the wrong tool for the job. A secret hold isn’t the best way to make sure bad bills get noticed and dropped. The best way would be the polar opposite: a mandatory public viewing period. All bills to be published on the open internet as readable HTML, a month before they come to the floor. Emergency rush bills to be permitted as exceptions, with the restriction that a rush bill can’t appropriate funds except for defense, must sunset in not more than one year, and that its re-passage may not be rushed.

]]>