House: New voices at the back mic
The day started out like yesterday, with a slam and inquisition on Craddick and his advisers on the dais.
This time, Reps. Mark Strama and David Liebowitz, both Democrats and the latter a lawyer, ran though a series of questions in an apparent attempt to do two things:
(I'm no lawyer but this is what I see)
1) Force Craddick to list all the things he can do or not do with his "absolute power" of recognition, to drive home their argument that he's going over the top.
Keel/Craddick is taking the position that the rules back him, and that it's not an interpretation but clear in the rules.
2) Establish, through a dizzying legal and intellectual trip up, a precedent or ruling or judgement (or, in Eiland's words, "whatever it is") right here on the floor that the speaker doesn't have absolute power - by forcing him to admit that there's at least one instance in which he is required to recognize a motion, any motion. Craddick's bobbing and weaving, and they're unsuccessful.
Comments
Knowing Leibowitz's prowess as a lawyer, I wonder if he also wasn't trying to create a record for a mandamus action or some other legal proceeding. The questions he was asking seemed to be directed at getting Craddick to admit that a motion to vacate (MTV) was not the same as an effort to remove Craddick from office.
Posted by: Boddhisattva | May 27, 2007 3:38 PM
Yeah, that occurred to me, too. As soon as he says on the record that he knows it isn't a motion to, as he delicately put it, "kick him out of the Texas House" then I guess that would render the constitutional argument/remedy moot, since that's for impeachment.
My head is banging against the ceiling of my legal knowledge at this point. But it sounds right to me.
Posted by: Brooks | May 27, 2007 4:08 PM
Journalist, legal commentator, rock 'n roll guitarist -- is there anything Karen Brooks canNOT do? :)
Posted by: The Great Googly Moogly | May 27, 2007 4:15 PM
Aw, sweet! Thanks!
The answer, by the way, is no.
Posted by: Brooks | May 27, 2007 4:20 PM