Excerpt from:US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law
Why no coverage?
by Baron Dave
Mason County ProgressiveWhy no coverage?
by Baron Dave
A bill passed Monday (2/27/12) in the US House of Representatives and Thursday (3/1/12) in the Senate that would make it a felony — a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration — to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the “Anti-Occupy” law, but its implications are far broader.
The bill — H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011” — was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.
As of this posting (3/3/12, 1:09 PM PST), only the World Socialist Web Site has the story or analysis. This major story seems to be flying under everyone's radar, including dKos.
Link to complete article:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/03/1070673/-US-Congress-passes-authoritarian-anti-protest-law-why-no-coverage-
Link to article on World Socialist Web Site:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml
Does "unanimous" consent mean that all of the Senators voted on this, and that our senators voted to approve this bill? That would make it very difficult for me to work on their re-election campaigns...
ReplyDeleteSUBMITTED BY: Katherine
ReplyDeleteI just got this definition off the internet (http://www.wisegeek.com/in-the-us-congress-what-is-unanimous-consent.htm) in answer to my question about unanimous consent:
"Unanimous consent is an agreement by all members present on anything requiring a yes or no decision. If a family all agrees to have pizza for dinner, this can be considered unanimous consent to have pizza.
However, in anyone objects to pizza, unanimous consent is not achieved, and the decision may have to come down to either a vote or parental discretion.
In Congress, unanimous consent is a way of quickly deciding issues without taking a vote. Issues where unanimous consent may be readily obtained are noncontroversial ones. So for example, by unanimous consent, a way to proceed in a hearing might be readily achieved.
If Congress wishes to table an issue and no one objects, this move can be considered as unanimous consent. Alternately, Congress might decide by unanimous consent to have Democrats and Republicans take turns arguing an issue. Though the issue itself may not have unanimous consent, the procedure for arguing the issue may.
At times, all members present in Congress approve bills or confirmation hearings without objection. When most of congress knows something will be approved with unanimous consent it is superfluous to take a vote. Generally a statement first calls for any objections to be raised. If no objections are raised, no vote is needed, so whatever decision needs to be made is adopted with unanimous consent."
If this ANTI-OCCUPY bill passed the Senate by "unanimous consent" I am baffled as to how it could have been perceived as "noncontroversial." Further, how in the world could we have not one Democratic Senator who wanted to object to a bill which is referred to as the "Anti-Occupy" bill??