Greg Abbott Skewers the Lies of the Runaway Texas Dems and Decimates Joe Biden In the Process

[thackney]

Because they occur in different legal documents, enacted for different purposes, and do not bear a necessary cross reference.

There is no reason a priori why the definition of residence in a statute must eo nomine limit the definition of residence in the constitution itself.

The only person who owes an explanation here, chief, is you, who seem to have gotten very, very confused about the difference between a statute and a constitution, and to have decided - contrary to all logic and practice - that the statute must necessarily confine and limit the constitution.

So, chief, since you are clearly a legal genius, prove that the definition of residence in the election statute necessarily constricts and limits the meaning of that term for the purposes of Art. III, Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution.

If you cannot, then STFU and admit that there is a clear gray area, with no particular guidance, and a plausible argument both ways.

In other words, climb down off your hobby horse and start acting like an adult again.

Quite pretending this is a real path to making the seat declared vacancy. 

The Texas Constitution also requires the Representative to be a resident of the district, Article 3, Sec 7.  Are you claiming the requirements for residency in Sec 7 are different than the requirement in Sec 23?

[berdie]

I don't see that the residency/job abandonment angle will fly.

To my mind, the repeated special sessions that are being threatened might have more effect. Most of these people have jobs/families/etc. They can't stay gone for a really long time. In fact, I'll be surprised if they aren't back before this session is over to capitalize on being "arrested".

I read that this is a taxpayer funded junket. I'm not sure how this could be. And if it is true then I'm

[HoustonSam]

Because they occur in different legal documents, enacted for different purposes, and do not bear a necessary cross reference.

There is no reason a priori why the definition of residence in a statute must eo nomine limit the definition of residence in the constitution itself.

The only person who owes an explanation here, chief, is you, who seem to have gotten very, very confused about the difference between a statute and a constitution, and to have decided - contrary to all logic and practice - that the statute must necessarily confine and limit the constitution.

So, chief, since you are clearly a legal genius, prove that the definition of residence in the election statute necessarily constricts and limits the meaning of that term for the purposes of Art. III, Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution.

If you cannot, then STFU and admit that there is a clear gray area, with no particular guidance, and a plausible argument both ways.

In other words, climb down off your hobby horse and start acting like an adult again.

I doubt that @thackney  is confused in the least about the differences between constitution and statute; this is a pointless, insecure, and childish dodge on your part @Kamaji that insults the intelligence of a thinking reader.  You, on the other hand, appear very confused about the differences between fact and wish, and between argument and invective.

You have asserted that the governor doesn't have to declare anything about a seat being vacant because the state constitution itself does so "after a certain minimum period of time, coupled with a stated intent to remain out of the state indefinitely to avoid legislative duties" :

He doesn't have to.  The Constitution itself declares the seat vacant if the occupant has "removed" his "residence" from his district or county.  All Gov. Abbott has to do is call for a special election on the basis that, after a certain minimum period of time, coupled with a stated intent to remain out of the state indefinitely to avoid legislative duties, the seat has become vacant by operation of law.

Where exactly is the provision in the state constitution that says an office holder has removed his residence according to this standard, and what specifically is the "certain minimum period of time"?

I'm looking for a direct quote of what the state constitution actually says, not what you wish it said or what you think it must imply.  If you fail to provide a direct quote then your position implies that the governor declares the law or, worse yet, determines the meaning of the constitution; no definition of "conservatism" or "rule of law" will tolerate either of those conclusions.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I doubt that @thackney  is confused in the least about the differences between constitution and statute; this is a pointless, insecure, and childish dodge on your part @Kamaji that insults the intelligence of a thinking reader.  You, on the other hand, appear very confused about the differences between fact and wish, and between argument and invective.

You have asserted that the governor doesn't have to declare anything about a seat being vacant because the state constitution itself does so "after a certain minimum period of time, coupled with a stated intent to remain out of the state indefinitely to avoid legislative duties" :

Where exactly is the provision in the state constitution that says an office holder has removed his residence according to this standard, and what specifically is the "certain minimum period of time"?

I'm looking for a direct quote of what the state constitution actually says, not what you wish it said or what you think it must imply.  If you fail to provide a direct quote then your position implies that the governor declares the law or, worse yet, determines the meaning of the constitution; no definition of "conservatism" or "rule of law" will tolerate either of those conclusions.

The closest thing in the Constitution is contained in Art I Sec 2 wherein the people have the ultimate authority to act, regardless of what other words within the Constitution says.

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The
faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican
form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times
the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner
as they may think expedient.

If elected representatives of the people decide not to represent the people, the people have the authority to decide to change their representation.

How they do it is left in the air, however.

[HoustonSam]

The closest thing in the Constitution is contained in Art I Sec 2 wherein the people have the ultimate authority to act, regardless of what other words within the Constitution says.

Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The
faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican
form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times
the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner
as they may think expedient.

If elected representatives of the people decide not to represent the people, the people have the authority to decide to change their representation.

How they do it is left in the air, however.

Thanks @IsailedawayfromFR .  Of course the first way to change representation is by election; I hope the districts which sent those runaway Ds to the state legislature will simply turn them out of office at the next election, but I don't really expect that to happen.

Other (hypothetical) ways to change representation seem to be constrained to the maintenance of a republican form of government; I'd have to think for a while to sort out what that constraint really requires.

[Bigun]

Thanks @IsailedawayfromFR .  Of course the first way to change representation is by election; I hope the districts which sent those runaway Ds to the state legislature will simply turn them out of office at the next election, but I don't really expect that to happen.

Other (hypothetical) ways to change representation seem to be constrained to the maintenance of a republican form of government; I'd have to think for a while to sort out what that constraint really requires.

I can tell you what would have happened to you if you willfully abandoned your post when I was in the military and, as someone upthread has already noted, what happens when you do that on a real-world job.

[HoustonSam]

I can tell you what would have happened to you if you willfully abandoned your post when I was in the military and, as someone upthread has already noted, what happens when you do that on a real-world job.

I'm sure you and I agree on what *ought to* happen to these people; if either of us had the authority to do it I suspect at a minimum we'd both summarily fire them.

The question is what does the law actually say about representatives leaving the state just to deny a quorum.  I think the unfortunate fact is the law doesn't say anything about it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm sure you and I agree on what *ought to* happen to these people; if either of us had the authority to do it I suspect at a minimum we'd both summarily fire them.

The question is what does the law actually say about representatives leaving the state just to deny a quorum.  I think the unfortunate fact is the law doesn't say anything about it.

What the law says is not the point.

It is what the collective people say which is important, as per Art I Sec 2 of our Texas Constitution.  They are the ones which get to decide as ultimately they make the laws.  Once again, how to do so is the question.

[Bigun]

I'm sure you and I agree on what *ought to* happen to these people; if either of us had the authority to do it I suspect at a minimum we'd both summarily fire them.

The question is what does the law actually say about representatives leaving the state just to deny a quorum.  I think the unfortunate fact is the law doesn't say anything about it.

I'll assure you that what ought to happen never will so long as it is left in the hands of the good ole boy network known as the Texas legislature.  Only an amendment to the constitution will ensure that it does.

[HoustonSam]

I'll assure you that what ought to happen never will so long as it is left in the hands of the good ole boy network known as the Texas legislature.  Only an amendment to the constitution will ensure that it does.

I agree.  It's naive to think the legislature would pass a law that holds accountable members of the legislature; clearly that will never happen.

Perhaps a better statement of my point is that neither constitution nor statutes speak to legislators leaving the state to deny a quorum.  Statutes likely never will speak to that event, and only the people can cause a corresponding amendment to the constitution.  I'll admit I'm ignorant of the procedures or requirements for amending the TX constitution.

[Bigun]

House Democrats Left Texas to Kill Conservative Priorities. Republicans Let Them.

While it’s unknown how this saga will end, the record shows House Republicans enabled the Democrat walkout that has paralyzed the Legislature.

Brandon Waltens
July 14, 2021

After House Democrats left Austin for Washington, D.C., this week in order to break quorum and halt consideration of conservative priorities, Republicans in the chamber continue to beat their chests, calling for Democrats to return and do the work they are paid to do.

And while that argument is certainly true (after all, House Democrats who have left will continue to be entitled to receive their pay and per diem), there is one key fact that has largely been ignored: House Republicans allowed this to happen.

And though it was only this past Monday that Democrats packed up their bags (and beer) to jet off to the nation’s Capitol, Republicans prepared the path for them before the session began.

It started in November when now-Speaker Dade Phelan courted Democrat lawmakers in his quest to wield the gavel. Having served since 2015, Phelan’s record was no secret. In fact, he was one of only three Texas House Republicans to receive a positive grade from Equality Texas, a pro-LGBT advocacy organization that has heavily opposed legislation to protect children from gender modification procedures.

But despite knowing these facts, the House Republican Caucus voted to give him their seal of approval.

On January 11, the day before the regular 87th Legislative Session was slated to begin, Phelan went on record saying he would appoint Democrats to chair committees, a practice not even done in Washington, D.C. Instead, Phelan called the House’s “bipartisan” model one that “worked pretty darn well,” adding that it was not always about “Republican versus Democrat” or “left versus right.”

Despite this assertion, Phelan was overwhelmingly elected speaker of the House on January 12, with only two freshman voting against him: State Reps. Jeff Cason (R–Bedford) and Bryan Slaton (R–Royse City).

The next day, when the House had the opportunity to pass the rules that governed how they would operate for the session, Slaton offered an amendment to bar Democrats from chairing committees in the Texas House...

Excerpt, Rest at link above