Tate can’t call special session

[CoastRat.sixpack]

Gunn and Delbert had the legislature vote this year to stay in session for the entire year, because of their claim to need to address COVID, and the federal funds associated with it. In reality, everyone knows the real reason was to take away the governor’s ability to call a special session.

As such, only the Lt. Gov and Speaker can call them back to Jackson for the rest of the year.

And Delbert is full of **** saying he doesn’t have the votes. The Lt. Gov is the most powerful position in our State Govt, and the minions will vote exactly as they are told. It’s a cop out, plain and simple.

It’s also true that Tate could have gotten this done as Lt. Gov but didn’t. He damn sure wouldn’t do it as Governor by calling a special session (even if he could).

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

Even if true, he can still lead though. If he came out and demanded the legislature take up the issue, it would go a long way and be hard to ignore.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Have the rules changed? Barbour called a special session regarding eminent domain and it occurred during the 2009 session.

Link: Here.

 

[Seinfeld]

That’s my single biggest gripe. Even if you can’t technically do or change a thing by yourself, you can absolutely set the expectations and make your voice as a leader clear.

Instead, Tate is clearly taking every opportunity he can to bring roadblocks to the table rather than doing this. It’s both weak and cowardly

 

[TNT.sixpack]

Even if true, he can still lead though. If he came out and demanded the legislature take up the issue, it would go a long way and be hard to ignore.

I agree. Speak up and say SOMETHING.

 

[L4Dawg]

That’s my single biggest gripe. Even if you can’t technically do or change a thing by yourself, you can absolutely set the expectations and make your voice as a leader clear.

Instead, Tate is clearly taking every opportunity he can to bring roadblocks to the table rather than doing this. It’s both weak and cowardly

It's Delbert more than Tate. If Delbert had sent the bill to the committee it should have gone to then there probably would have been a vote. Instead he sent it to a little used one where he knew it would die. I have lost all respect for Delbert and will not vote for him again.

 

[L4Dawg]

Have the rules changed? Barbour called a special session regarding eminent domain and it occurred during the 2009 session.

Link: Here.

I think he can call one. He isn't going to do it unless the votes are there.

 

[Seinfeld]

I just watched season 2 of Ozark where Wendy and Marty have to “get the votes” for the new casino, and I’m honestly starting to believe that the show’s depiction isn’t too far off from how politics truly work

 

[johnson86-1]

It's Delbert more than Tate. If Delbert had sent the bill to the committee it should have gone to then there would probably been a vote. Instead he sent it to a little used one where he new it would die. I have lost all respect for Delbert and will not vote for him again.

I'm no Delbert fan and just left Lt. Gv blank rather than voting for him, but I'm not sure him sending the bill to committee to die means he doesn't support it.

If the votes aren't there to change the flag, I'd rather it be killed like that than lose an open vote. I'd like to think if it goes to a full vote, arms will be twisted into changing it, but I don't know if that's the case. If Delbert killed it just to take political heat and save some of his allies from having to cast a controversial vote, then yes, blame him.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Again. If he were on the right side of this issue he would open his mouth and lead so that the votes would be there. Loudly. Publicly. Incessantly. Until it gets changed. They are all politically neutered.

 

[philduckworth]

The MS LT Gov is named Delbert, wow.

 

[CoastRat.sixpack]

Even if true, he can still lead though. If he came out and demanded the legislature take up the issue, it would go a long way and be hard to ignore.

I don't disagree. Just wanted to point out the maneuver pulled by the legislature this year to further weaken the position of governor.

 

[CoastRat.sixpack]

Have the rules changed? Barbour called a special session regarding eminent domain and it occurred during the 2009 session.

Link: Here.

Yes and no. They didn't take away the Governor's ability to call a special session, directly. However, a special session can only be called if the legislature is not in session. By declaring themselves in session for the entire year, it indirectly takes it away, because the Governor can only call a special session if the legislature is NOT in session.

It's kind of like how the legislature, city council, etc. cannot fire an employee because only the governor or mayor, etc. can do that. But the legislative branch can defund that position.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

If he doesn't have the votes, then bring up the resolution and make the people go on the record as no votes. It's that 17ing simple.

I've never gotten this about parliamentary process. Is there some three strikes and you're out rule with bringing up legislation that gets voted down?

 

[johnson86-1]

If he doesn't have the votes, then bring up the resolution and make the people go on the record as no votes. It's that 17ing simple.

I've never gotten this about parliamentary process. Is there some three strikes and you're out rule with bringing up legislation that gets voted down?

Not a parliamentarian, so this probably isn't right, but my understanding is that there is a deadline for dropping bills (not sure about resolutions) and anything that isn't dropped by the deadline is "out of order" and you need a 2/3's vote to suspend order to consider it. I think maybe there is a similar elevated hurdle to add an amendment that is not germane, so can't just stick it into another, existing bill.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

So there's some kind of vote they can get on the record. If neither the Lt. Governor nor the Speaker of the House are willing to bring it up for a vote, or even bring up a vote for suspending the rules to consider it, then they are fully to blame, even if they "don't have the votes." If they have a vote and the vote fails, then they can at least claim it wasn't their fault it didn't pass.

 

[johnson86-1]

So there's some kind of vote they can get on the record. If neither the Lt. Governor nor the Speaker of the House are willing to bring it up for a vote, or even bring up a vote for suspending the rules to consider it, then they are fully to blame, even if they "don't have the votes." If they have a vote and the vote fails, then they can at least claim it wasn't their fault it didn't pass.

That's true, but you usually don't get to become and stay speaker by putting the people who vote for you in difficult, no-win positions.

Delbert is insulated from that dynamic as a statewide elected official (although I believe the senate could strip him of a lot of his powers at the beginning of a session), but there is also the longer range thought of, if you believe politicians know how their constituents feel about an issue and they think voting to change the flag will get them tossed from office, what kind of politicians do you think are going to take their place?

If we change the flag and then say a tenth of the people that vote to change it get tossed, not sure that's a good trade for the people of the state. Would certainly be a bad one except for the blowback from out of state people.


Not saying I wouldn't prefer them to bite the bullet and put it to a vote, I would, just thinking out loud as I try to understand why it's not happening and might not happen.

 

[G-Dawg]

Pretty dirty, isn't it?

I'm convinced that if 100% of the people of Mississippi were behind an issue, it would still take 2 years, minimum, to get it through the Legislature.

 

[paindonthurt_]

Term limits