'Texas 11' sues state GOP

[Khephra]

AUSTIN -- What some see as skipping work, the 11 Texas Senate Democrats holed up in Albuquerque consider political expression. And on Wednesday, they asked a federal court to protect that First Amendment right.

The stakes in a summerlong battle over congressional redistricting intensified 24 days ago when the Democrats bolted for New Mexico, shutting down the Texas Capitol and provoking fines and sanctions by their Republican colleagues.

"Anyone who's watched this knows that this is a political statement by these senators. That is a core First Amendment right," said Austin lawyer Max Renea Hicks, who represents the Democrats.

Democrats contend that changing the state's 32 congressional districts will harm blacks and Hispanics and that the only way to protect their interests is to prevent the redistricting bill from being passed.

more.....................

http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20030821-11910.shtml

[wtmusic]

1. Invoking the First Amendment

is more than a BIT ridiculous--it's not a first amendment issue. Texas needs a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting redistricting more often than every ten years.

Irrationality breeds irrationality.

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. I don't agree.

First Amendement does not just refer to the printed word.

[wtmusic]

3. Yeah? Give me an argument how that relates to redistricting.

Not a snowball in hell.

[sham]

4. You are making the wrong connections.

You cannot make 2+2=5. Just go ahead and try.

I have been following this closely, and if I am understanding this particular case correctly, the Senators are not using to First Amendment to prevent redistricting. They have other lawsuits pending for that. The purpose of invoking the First Amendment here is to protect themselves and their staffs from the penalties the Pugs have placed against them for expressing their (and constituents') objection. The Dems argue that leaving the state in protest is an act of speech, and that it is therefore unconstitutional to fine them $5,000 a day for doing it. How is that irrational? I don't see it as a mortal lock that they will win the point (especially in the Texas courts), but it certainly is not irrational to suggest that protest should be considered protected speech.

[wtmusic]

6. "Leaving the state in protest is an act of speech"?

2 + 2 = 15.

[AlabamaYankee]

7. Absolutely

"Speech" in this instance is considered to be any type of expression to communicate an opinion. In this case, the most dramatic and effective means of speech the Dems had was to "speak with their feet". To give a historical examply, the Boston Tea Party could be an act of political speech, and protected by the First Amendment

[wtmusic]

8. Didn't want to have to go here, but

speech

1. The faculty or act of speaking.
2. The faculty or act of expressing or describing thoughts, feelings, or perceptions by the articulation of words.
2. Something spoken; an utterance.
3. Vocal communication; conversation.
4.
1. A talk or public address: “The best impromptu speeches are the ones written well in advance” (Ruth Gordon).
2. A printed copy of such an address.
5. One's habitual manner or style of speaking.
6. The language or dialect of a nation or region: American speech.
7. The sounding of a musical instrument.
8. The study of oral communication, speech sounds, and vocal physiology.
9. Archaic. Rumor.

They went to NM to prevent redistricting. No expression of opinion involved. It wasn't protest. It was a political ploy to counter the Repug ploy.

Get over it.

[primavera]

10. Good thing you're not a constitutional scholar

Virtually none of the protections which we enjoy in this country are laid out in the Constitution as explicitly and literally as you require; they're all interpretation and extrapolation of what was intended in an intentionally vague, general, one-size-fits-all document. Were we not able to interpret the meaning of the Constitution beyond it's literal Webster's word-for-word definition, it would be a hopelessly archaic, anachronistic document. And, happily for Texas Dems, most of those who are constitutional scholars have consistently taken a much broader view of the word "speech" contained in the first amendment than you have.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. A Court of law and a judge's opinion will expand on Webster.

What you're completely overlooking is how courts have ruled in the past in defining "speech." For that you will have to review court cases and cite actual case law. I'm afraid your opinion in this regard is irrelevant, because case law overrules you. Actions are sometimes viewed as expression of speech by the courts. That's a fact.

[wtmusic]

12. OK, I'll allow you the unbelievably WIDE expansion

of driving over the state line and staying in a motel for a few weeks as SPEECH (under that umbrella starting a war in Iraq is, as well, protected under the First Amendment of Our Constitution).

Now that we've got that straight (and since you appear to not want to address the second part of my post, I'll state it again): What was the motive for these congressmen going to Albuquerque? Was it entirely coincidental that a vote was scheduled to coincide with them leaving, and was in fact prevented when they did leave? Were they unaware of this fact? Could they not have spoken out freely in Texas against redistricting? Were there any restrictions whatsoever put on their public or private debate of the issue?

Get real.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. I don't think you're going to get anywhere

with one dimensional thinking. You have one point of view and it seems you're willing to eliminate all other possibilities. The courts will consider ALL points of views. I'm perfectly happy to wait and see how they rule on this issue, since their opinion is the only one that holds legal water.

On edit: If you wish to continue debating, the only thing that will bolster your opinion is court precedent. So feel free to cite any case that supports your position.

[wtmusic]

18. Oh, really?

Well, if you consider irrational points of view other possibilities then I admit, I am very one-dimensional. I've tried to argue rationally with you and you continue to ignore the motive behind the congressmen leaving Texas (re: being happy to wait, I'm happy for you. I guess I thought we were deciding the issue here and now </sarcasm>).

I don't see any court cases supporting your position so I guess you have very little to bolster your case too. IMO if you in your heart feel that this "morning-after" application of A1 is just (the word "protest" never appeared in press releases until this nonsense got started) then you are sorely misguided.

I will add that I hope to hell the case gets thrown out before the sun comes up tomorrow. Much as I want to see redistricting stopped, no one should stoop to Repug tactics to do it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. You just opened yourself up.

Pornography cases are based on First Amendment issues.

GOTCHA!

[wtmusic]

38. Saywha?

You been looking under my bed or something?

[alfredo]

17. The Supreme court ruled that burning the flag was protected speech

A mute would have no right to free speech?

[wtmusic]

19. I think we've already established

that "speech" has been interpreted as expression of opinion, and that's a good thing. However, James Madison did choose the word "speech", not "protest", and not "action". Was that word chosen deliberately to limit the range of possible interpretations, or did he intend any action to be able to be interpreted as an expression of opinion?

[WillyT]

20. Wow... A 'Strict Constructionist' We Don't See Many Of Them Around Here !!

LOL!!!

:hi:

[wtmusic]

21. Is that strict? Really? n/t

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. Yes. And if you don't mind, answer the secret DU password question:

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election?

[wtmusic]

35. Umm...Skinner?

Is that right?? Is that right??

[Bake]

32. You are forgetting, e.g., flag burning and other ACTIONS

Which the Supreme Court has definitively construed as falling under the First Amendment umbrella.

Other examples: refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Turning one's back on the pResident.

None of these involve the articulation of the spoken or written word. But they are all forms of personal expression which warrant First Amendment protection. Don't argue with me, take it up with the Supremes.

Bake

[wtmusic]

36. Why do you suppose they used the word 'speech' then? An oversight?

BTW, the Supremes weren't in.

I'm getting tired everyone. Now I know how Will Pitt feels--I MUST be wrong. This First Amendment deal rocks--a true catchall!! I'm going to plead 'the First' (it already feels good) on my next parking ticket--"That's right, officer, I was PROTESTING this low, low speed limit by going 65 in a 30mph zone!"

[Proud_American]

24. I may be mistaken

but isn't that exactly what the TX Constitution already says?

[sybylla]

5. worth a shot, I guess.

But I was hoping for something the Texas conservative courts would have a difficult time opposing.

[Felix Mala]

9. We need Simon and Garfunkel, Neil Young

There needs to be a big, free concert in Austin to support these patriots.

[TahitiNut]

13. When d'ya s'pose the GOP will claim ...

... the Texas Dems are no longer residents of Texas? :eyes:

[davidinalameda]

14. how is burning the flag speech?

to me, it sounds like the same argument--action equals expression

[WillyT]

16. Yep, Burning A Flag Is Speech, $25,000 Contributions Are Speech...

Hell, all sorts of things have been determined to be 'Speech'.

BTW - This seems to be a form of protest by the Texas Dems, and I believe protest is a from of speech as well!

:shrug:

[alfredo]

22. I guess this could cover it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

they are peacefully assembling in NM to petition the government for redress of grievances.

[wtmusic]

23. LOL! They're in the wrong state then!! n/t

[alfredo]

25. If they have to leave their state to make their point,

then something is wrong in Texas.

[wtmusic]

26. No doubt something is wrong in Texas

wish it didn't have to come to this.

[timbo]

27. thank you.

i had already copied that last important phrase and was scrolling to the bottom.

this is, i think, what the case is about. the right to petition, i would argue, encompasses the right to absent oneself to render that petition effective.

[0007]

28. So when junior went AWOL

junior was indirectly saying "FUCK YOU" to the contract that he signed with the United States Air Force. Is that an act of free speech

[TahitiNut]

31. You seem to have a misapprehension that ...

... members of the military are entitled to freely exercise their civil liberties. They're not. A 'breach of contract' with the military has (supposedly) far greater penalties than in civilian life.

[Bake]

33. I don't see this as a free speech issue, however

The Texas Killer D's are not being sanctioned by the Pukes/Senate for expressing their opinion, they are being sanctioned for allegedly shirking their legislative responsibilities. Do I agree? HELL NO! But I think the First Amendment argument is pretty weak. A better argument is that the Pukes, without a quorum, are powerless to do ANYTHING, and the Texas Constitution apparently doesn't REQUIRE the Dems to be there--so they are exercising the ONE TOOL they have at their disposal to prevent an action that would be offensive to them and their constituents and injurious to their interests and those of their constitutents.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I don't see the Fijrst Amendment thing so far. Sure, they were expressing their opinion, but I don't think that's the issue. The real issue is whether what they are doing is LAWFUL (I think it is) and whether the Pukes have the legitimate power to sanction them (I think they don't).

Bake

[The Zanti Regent]

34. Does anyone know where to send $$$$ to help these brave patriots?

I can't send a lot, but I'd like to give SOMETHING to help these brave patriots!

[truthisfreedom]

37. i just got a message from moveon.org, who've raised $400k for them so far

and their goal is $1M. just for the killer 'D's. woohoo!

-------------------

Dear MoveOn member,

In one day MoveOn members have contributed more than $400,000 for our
"Defend Democracy" campaign. We've been overwhelmed by the response.
The 11 Texas legislators who are right now risking everything for us
and for democracy are deeply grateful to receive this support.

Let's raise a $1,000,000 to make this our biggest campaign ever.
Let's take this campaign to national media outlets, and go deep with
Texas media. Let's take it to California. Let's connect the dots.
George Bush and Karl Rove have been counting on getting away with
these underhanded tactics -- on bullying their opposition into
submission, on playing every dirty trick in the book. With your help,
we can make it cost them dearly. If you can, please make a
contribution today:

http://moveon.org/texasads

We've added a progress graph to our contribution page so that you can
see how close we are towards our goal. Click above to see our
progress.

Our democracy has survived 227 years for one simple reason: when
confronted by extremism, Americans have always united in defense of
freedom. The redistricting fight in Texas is a piece of a larger
attack on democracy nationwide -- Impeachment; the 2000 election;
intimidation on Capital Hill; the California recall; and now
congressional redistricting at the whim of the Majority in Congress.

Texas is a first step. Next week, we will ask for your help to defeat
the California recall -- specifically, to recruit friends and family
in California who are angry about the recall and want to do something
about it. We can stop this attack on Democracy if we once again stand
united. We'll stop it in Texas, California, Washington DC and wherever
it occurs.

Sincerely,

--Carrie, Eli, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn Team
August 21st, 2003


Once again, here is the letter from State Senator Rodney Ellis and
background information on the events in Texas.
___________________

Dear friends,

I am writing to you from a hotel room in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
where I and 10 of my colleagues in the Texas Senate have been forced
to reside for the past 20 days. If we return to our homes, families,
friends, and constituents, the Governor of Texas will have us
arrested.

I know, it sounds more like a banana republic than the dignified
democracy on which we have long prided ourselves. We are effectively
exiled from the state due to our unalterable opposition to a
Republican effort -- pushed by Tom Delay and Karl Rove, and led by
Texas Governor Rick Perry -- that would rewrite the map of Texas
Congressional districts in order to elect at least 5 more Republicans
to Congress.

You may not have heard much about the current breakdown in Texas
politics. The Republican power play in California has obscured the
Republican power play in Texas that has forced my colleagues and me to
leave the state.

Recognizing that public pressure is the only thing that can break the
current stalemate, our friends at MoveOn have offered to support our
efforts by sharing this email with you. In it, you will find:

-Background information on how the situation in Texas developed;
-Analysis of what's at stake for Democrats and the democratic process;

The Republican redistricting effort shatters the tradition of
performing redistricting only once a decade immediately after the
Census -- making redistricting a perpetual partisan process. It
elevates partisan politics above minority voting rights, in
contravention of the federal Voting Rights Act. It intends to decimate
the Democratic party in Texas, and lock in a Republican majority in
the U.S. House of Representatives. And Republican efforts to force a
vote on this issue by changing the rules of legislative procedure
threaten to undermine the rule of law in Texas.

We do not take lightly our decision to leave the state. It was the
only means left to us under the rules of procedure in Texas to block
this injustice. We are fighting for our principles and beliefs, and we
can win this fight with your support.

Sincerely,

Rodney Ellis
Texas State Senator (Houston)
August 18, 2003
___________________