Flashback from 2004 - Republicans REJECT Minority 'Bill of Rights'

[ck4829]

"House Democrats' anger at heavy-handed Republican tactics reached a new level yesterday, with the chamber's top Democrat asking the House speaker to embrace a "Bill of Rights" for the minority, regardless which party it is.

n keeping with the general atmosphere of the House these days, aides to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) said he will not respond to the two-page proposal from Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

For decades, the party in power has used House parliamentary rules to limit the minority party's ability to amend bills and shape debates. But Democrats -- in the minority for 10 years after four decades of control -- say Republicans have gone to unreasonable lengths in recent years. GOP leaders dispute this, but congressional scholars and even some rank-and-file Republicans agree in whole or in part.

Pelosi's document, which she vows to honor if Democrats regain the majority, says: "Too often, incivility and the heavy hand of the majority" have silenced Democrats and choked off "thoughtful debate." She called on the majority to let the minority offer meaningful amendments and substitutes to important bills; to limit roll-call votes to the normal 15 minutes rather than keeping them open to round up needed votes; and to let all appointees to House-Senate conference committees participate in meetings and decisions.

...

Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) said in an interview that Democrats are crying about the process because they are losing policy debates over job creation and progress in Iraq. His mission as chairman, he said, is "to move our agenda, and to do it in the fairest and most responsible way possible. And I do it in that order."

...

Hastert dismissed the Democrats' complaints in an interview yesterday. "I have looked at our record over the years," he said, and compared it with Republicans' ability to offer meaningful amendments during the 40 years of Democratic House rule. "I will hold up our record any day."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A680-2004Jun23.html

[originalpckelly]

1. I think there should be a minority party bill of rights, but one condition should be...

that it only applies when either party doesn't have any representation in power at the national level. In other words, if the Republicans were to lose the Presidency, they should be entitled to the minority bill of rights.

However, when a party has one or more house(s) of Congress or the Presidency, they should be ineligible because they have a power broker capable of representing their interests at the nation level.

For years we had the Presidency, and the House and Senate weren't as bad off. It's when we lost all power that was horrible. For a period of 4+ years we had no representation at the national level, even though we weren't a small minority, but nearly half of America, we had no say in America's policies.

[SoFlaJet]

5. good provision Kelly

it makes a lot of sense

[neuvocat]

2. Oops.

I didn't realize this was a flashback moment.

:dunce:

[bullimiami]

3. it was tossed back in pelosi's face with a scoff.

so be it.

they will surely be treated with more consideration than they either gave or deserve.

[Bitwit1234]

4. I thnk this whole article

should be printed out and sent to every single republican in the house and senate. And we do know that Pelosi will not treat the republicans the way they treated the dems. Bet on it.

[Toots]

6. All the Republicans are asking for is the same rights the Democrats wished they

had been given. That is what the Minority Leader Mr. Boner says anyway..