Quorums Busting A Disgrace

I am borrowing some of this from information found on the Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/what-would-americas-founders-think-about-fleeing-legislators_552632.html)

What is happening in Wisconsin right now is most certainly something that would never be condoned by the founding fathers. These men who have fled from their responsibility and gone to another state are no different than the anti-federalists. They didn't like the new constitution and decided they would simply hold it hostage by not showing up to vote thus robbing the rest of  the congress from the ability to vote on it. (see below)

In September 1787, the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification. The Pennsylvania Assembly met to pass legislation creating a convention that would decide if the state should sign on to the newly re conceived United States. But something was missing: a quorum. Several anti-Federalist lawmakers, determined to defeat the new Constitution, refused to show up for work, paralyzing the assembly.

The Federalists were displeased. The anti-Federalist flight, they said, was “the conduct of an unmanly minority.” And so an intrepid mob went down to Major Boyd’s Tavern, ferreted out two recalcitrant legislators, and dragged them to the statehouse. A quorum restored, lawmakers passed their resolutions as the mob rained “the most insulting language” down upon the erstwhile absconders.

The Wisconsin and Indiana state legislators now holed up in Illinois are not the first to skip town and deny their political adversaries a quorum to do business. Even Abe Lincoln once defenestrated himself from the Springfield statehouse in a botched bid to deny the majority Democrats their numbers.

Supporters of the Wisconsin 14 invoke this history of quorum busting to justify, and even to praise, the Badger State exodus. But the fact that it’s been done before doesn’t make it right. The better questions to ask are why we have quorums in the first place, and whether quorums are designed to encourage, or to prevent, defiant minority blocs from bolting the state.

Certainly these men can be found. Reporters have found them but are so eager to get the interview that they refuse to divulge their whereabouts. It is past the time for this. These men need to be brought back to their jobs even if it means arresting them and dragging them back in cuffs. These men should suffer every form of ridicule for doing everything they can to stand in the way of the will of the people through the democratic process.

Our founding fathers viewed this kind of behavior as the sort of thing that could ruin a nation and you have to wonder if this is not their intention. They seem almost gleeful about all the hoopla they're creating. This is both an embarrassment to the people and to the institution of government to which these people belong. They do not deserve to keep their positions and should be recalled as quickly as possible, if for no other reason than to send the message that we are not going to put up with this kind of behavior from our elected officials. They work for us not the other way around. If they are not going to do their jobs then we need to get rid of them. It is just that simple.

Federalist 58, James Madison criticized the “baneful practice of secessions” as “subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.”

Quorums are most certainly an important thing to have, but they were not meant to be used to stop a bill you didn't like when you couldn't vote it down, they were meant to be a means of preventing a minority in the congress or other areas of government from gathering and quickly passing a law with no majority vote. To intentionally desert your post so prevent a vote that you know is what the majority wants is against everything our founders were trying to do. As our duly elected officials and our employees they have an obligation to show up for votes. This is not a case of some minority trying to meet quickly and almost secretly to pass some bill before the majority can prevent it. This is quite the opposite and for these men to pretend they are doing the work of government by not showing up for their jobs is a disgrace.

These men ought to suffer as much public embarrassment as we can possibly heap on them. These men have behaved in the most shameful and cowardly way. As if often the case with true cowards they try to cloak what they're doing as being out of concern for someone as though they are actually being brave. They are afraid of the unions. They are exercising the only power they have which is to run away. This is disgraceful. These men are a complete disgrace to their office. Is this really what we hired them for?

It is doubtful that any except the unions feel these men are doing their jobs.