Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

House votes to strip Patriot Act of US Attorney provision 329-78

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:24 PM
Original message
House votes to strip Patriot Act of US Attorney provision 329-78
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
1. they should scrap the whole thing
from stem to stern, IMO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. DITTO! We have no use for that horrendous waste of paper. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oh my. That looks veto-proof.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. Anybody got a link to the pieces of shit who voted nay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Here is the link
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll189.xml

NAYS

Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Doolittle
Duncan
English (PA)
Everett
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gingrey
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hayes
Herger
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCrery
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Musgrave
Myrick
Nunes
Poe
Price (GA)
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Roskam
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Smith (NE)
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Young (FL)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rosesaylavee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Hastert. Feh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juno jones Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
5. Who are the other 78....
and WHY do they want the attorney provision to stand???? Hmmmmmm???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
6. Time to REPEAL the entire Patriot Act.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinto Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. Great concurrent action to the Senate action.
Edited on Mon Mar-26-07 07:43 PM by pinto
:thumbsup: :kick:

"It is key to ensure that U.S. Attorneys are subject to Senate confirmation. Under federal statute, U.S. Attorneys are appointed by the President and are confirmed by the Senate. Senate confirmation is an integral part of our checks-and-balances system. The Senate’s advice and consent process formally checks the power of the President by requiring the U.S. Attorney nominee to go through a confirmation process. In addition, traditionally, the President has usually accepted U.S. Attorney nominees for a particular state who are recommended by that state’s Senators from the President’s political party or other officials in that state from the President’s party. This tradition, called “Senatorial courtesy,” has also served as an additional, informal check on the President’s appointment power.

The bill would apply to the interim U.S. attorneys who are currently serving in the place of the eight dismissed U.S. Attorneys. This bill would impact the U.S. Attorney openings that were created when the eight U.S. Attorneys were forced to resign by the Bush Administration. It would make sure that interim U.S. Attorneys presently serving do not linger in office without Senate confirmation.

A similar bill, S. 214, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), was passed by the Senate by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 94 to 2 on March 20."

http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0017

Complete bill is here (use H.R 580 as Bill Number search query):

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Indeed. the House and Senate both sending a message
Even if the American people don't care, the lawmakers DO.

Backdoor governance is OUT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
8. Good...the more of the P.A. they get rid of the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-26-07 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
9. The only reason the Repubs in the House and Senate voted
for this bill is because they would have been out of the loop come '08.

In my opinion the Dems could have used the current provision for a couple of years to chase corrupt congressman. Sorry to see it go. Once again Dems playing touch football against the ultimate wrestlers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 02:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC