H.R. 347 - aka S. 1974 in the Senate - How did Rand vote?

[Sematary]

So, I read that this piece of shit passed by "unanimous" consent in the Senate but there is no record of who voted for it. Anyone know how Rand Paul felt about this?

[GraniteHills]

S 1974 is something different, I think. Here is the bill history for HR 347/S 358 (?):

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r112:FLD001:S50358

I don't see that the Senate did anything except vote on an amendment to the original bill (?)

S 1794 is the "related bill"

edit: utter confusion

[EaSy]

Feb 6, 2012: This bill passed in the Senate with changes by Unanimous Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

[Sematary]

Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
The senate bill is S. 1794 (passed on Feb 6) -my bad on the mistype of the bill number

[GraniteHills]

Thanks.

Here is his 2012 voting record, FWIW.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.xpd?person=412492

[Sematary]

Why isn't there a record of how they voted on THIS bill though, and how did Rand vote - or not vote at all?

[Feeding the Abscess]

Why isn't there a record of how they voted on THIS bill though, and how did Rand vote - or not vote at all?

There wasn't a vote taken because the bill was sent through to the offices of each Senator and approved.

[NoOneButPaul]

All the more reason i have issues trusting Rand...

[Lisa Boxer]

All the more reason i have issues trusting Rand...

Me too, especially since I've emailed him a few times politely asking how he feels about this bill and why he allowed it to pass through the Senate unanimously, but received no response. I'd never donated anything to any politician before but gave his father the maximum allowed $2,500 this campaign. I won't be donating anything to Rand Paul, voting for him or supporting him in any way until this is explained to my satisfaction.

[Lishy]

Rand let it pass?????

[wrestlingwes_8]

Rand let it pass?????

Of course he did, he might as well be another DeMint

[Justinfrom1776]

Let's get the whole story before we have ourselves a Randbashing session.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

What exactly is the problem?

[Philosophy_of_Politics]

He may not have voted at all.

[ClydeCoulter]

Why would he not?

[Pisces]

Why would he not?

I dont know when this particular bill was passed but I remember the Senate held a Saturday session for the payroll tax issue that Rand missed. He was attending his niece's wedding in Texas.

[Lishy]

So how did rand vote or not, and why?

[ClydeCoulter]

So how did rand vote or not, and why?
^^^^THIS^^^^

[Lishy]

Any answers?

[ClydeCoulter]

So how did rand vote or not, and why?

BUMP^^^^^THIS^^^^

[Pisces]

Any answers?

Maybe some of the forum members here who have contact with members of Rand's staff should ask them if this bill was "hotlined" and they either missed the call or didn't respond in time to stop the bill from passing by unanimous consent.

[ClydeCoulter]

BUMP

[Crotale]

I support Rand in the same way I support the Cato Institute and The Reason Foundation. They're not too bad and certainly a lot better than most, but they're just not the same class as Ron Paul, Mises Institute, and LRC, FTL, AVTM...

But anyway, I just want to defend the idea of not voting. I don't know what this bill is or how significant it is, but politicians can't make every single vote. It goes down in priorities if the result is going to be clear cut. Ron Paul hasn't made every single vote, and I don't hold anything against him for that. It's impossible to do so.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I support Rand in the same way I support the Cato Institute and The Reason Foundation. They're not too bad and certainly a lot better than most, but they're just not the same class as Ron Paul, Mises Institute, and LRC, FTL, AVTM...

But anyway, I just want to defend the idea of not voting. I don't know what this bill is or how significant it is, but politicians can't make every single vote. It goes down in priorities if the result is going to be clear cut. Ron Paul hasn't made every single vote, and I don't hold anything against him for that. It's impossible to do so.

This was different; it was sent to his Senatorial office and it was approved there, thus the passing with unanimous consent.

[QWDC]

Sounds like one of those bills that got "hotlined". I doubt Rand's office actually put a stamp of approval on it.

[ClydeCoulter]

Sounds like one of those bills that got "hotlined". I doubt Rand's office actually put a stamp of approval on it.

I would like to know if he did or skipped it. I don't want to guess.

[ClydeCoulter]

This was different; it was sent to his Senatorial office and it was approved there, thus the passing with unanimous consent.

So, he did approve it?

[Feeding the Abscess]

So, he did approve it?

The vast majority of bills are sent to Senator's offices several days in advance, and the bill passed with only three dissenting voices in the House. In terms of passing Congress, it's a completely uncontroversial bill. He and/or his staff approved of it.

[Pisces]

The vast majority of bills are sent to Senator's offices several days in advance, and the bill passed with only three dissenting voices in the House. In terms of passing Congress, it's a completely uncontroversial bill. He and/or his staff approved of it.

That's not completely true. In this video Jim Demint discusses bills passing by unanimous consent. Starting at 1:05 minutes, he says that a lot of these bills are "hotlined" when they know Senators are in transit or at night.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B751mhY-QE

[susano]

I just saw mention of this legislation on another thread. I didn't know about it. Bullshit this is not controversial and there is NO EXCUSE for Rand Paul not raising hell about this. This 'law' can put someone in prison for ten years for exercising their right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. That Rand's office never responded to the person who wrote is telling.

[Xhin]

The bill isn't THAT different to the law that preceded it. The only difference is it makes trespassing on the white house illegal and changes "willing and knowing" to "knowing". The other "freedom of speech supressing" parts of the bill have been on the books for decades. In the house, Amash opposed the bill because of the change to "knowing", and Paul and Broun supported him on it. Then the internet got wind of Amash's opposition and looked at the content of the bill and assumed that the bill was banning freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and THAT was what Amash was opposing.

You guys need to actually do research into the bill before you criticize Rand Paul for not voting against it.

[BamaFanNKy]

The bill isn't THAT different to the law that preceded it. The only difference is it makes trespassing on the white house illegal and changes "willing and knowing" to "knowing". The other "freedom of speech supressing" parts of the bill have been on the books for decades. In the house, Amash opposed the bill because of the change to "knowing", and Paul and Broun supported him on it. Then the internet got wind of Amash's opposition and looked at the content of the bill and assumed that the bill was banning freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and THAT was what Amash was opposing.

You guys need to actually do research into the bill before you criticize Rand Paul for not voting against it.

But then they can't call Rand a statist.

[sailingaway]

The bill isn't THAT different to the law that preceded it. The only difference is it makes trespassing on the white house illegal and changes "willing and knowing" to "knowing". The other "freedom of speech supressing" parts of the bill have been on the books for decades. In the house, Amash opposed the bill because of the change to "knowing", and Paul and Broun supported him on it. Then the internet got wind of Amash's opposition and looked at the content of the bill and assumed that the bill was banning freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and THAT was what Amash was opposing.

You guys need to actually do research into the bill before you criticize Rand Paul for not voting against it.

no, it was willful which by court interpretation meant you had to know the provision existed making it illegal to that extent. It is a pretty major change from just knowing you are trespassing.

I want to find out what happened as well, over time. This is a big one.

[susano]

The bill isn't THAT different to the law that preceded it. The only difference is it makes trespassing on the white house illegal and changes "willing and knowing" to "knowing". The other "freedom of speech supressing" parts of the bill have been on the books for decades. In the house, Amash opposed the bill because of the change to "knowing", and Paul and Broun supported him on it. Then the internet got wind of Amash's opposition and looked at the content of the bill and assumed that the bill was banning freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and THAT was what Amash was opposing.

You guys need to actually do research into the bill before you criticize Rand Paul for not voting against it.

By your reasoning the PATRIOT Act would have been fine because of previous losses of freedom like the Anti Terrorism Crime Bill rammed through after the Oklahoma City conspiracy. I mean we lost a lot back then so what's to complain with the PATRIOT Act. It's a little worse than previous legislation.

[John F Kennedy III]

I just saw mention of this legislation on another thread. I didn't know about it. Bullshit this is not controversial and there is NO EXCUSE for Rand Paul not raising hell about this. This 'law' can put someone in prison for ten years for exercising their right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. That Rand's office never responded to the person who wrote is telling.

LOL.

[Brett85]

The bill isn't THAT different to the law that preceded it. The only difference is it makes trespassing on the white house illegal and changes "willing and knowing" to "knowing". The other "freedom of speech supressing" parts of the bill have been on the books for decades. In the house, Amash opposed the bill because of the change to "knowing", and Paul and Broun supported him on it. Then the internet got wind of Amash's opposition and looked at the content of the bill and assumed that the bill was banning freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and THAT was what Amash was opposing.

You guys need to actually do research into the bill before you criticize Rand Paul for not voting against it.

Some people just think that every bill should be opposed, regardless of what is in it.