on MAY 4, 2007, HR 333 was refered to House Judiciary

[MrCoffee]

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HE00333:@@@C

the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, to be specific

The Subcommittee members are :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Judiciary_Subcommittee_on_the_Constitution%2C_Civil_Rights%2C_and_Civil_Liberties

Conyers has had HR 333 since May.

[Igel]

1. Perspective is nice. n/t

[Xipe Totec]

2. Time for Conyers to beg, borrow, steal, or grow an new pair nt

[hootinholler]

3. Yep! Next best thing to tabling it...

Have the committee sit on it.

-Hoot

[redqueen]

4. Yes, but now the public is more aware.

If Conyers really believes it's in the public interest to keep stonewalling the investigation of this very hated and very guilty man, then he'll do so.

If he chooses that option, well... we'll have to let the chips fall where they may.

[Phillycat]

12. Who is more aware?

Maybe WE are more aware, but uh, we were already aware. The MSM didn't carry it at all. It might get on Olbermann, that's about it.

I like your optimism, but I really don't get how this helped our cause at all.

[redqueen]

15. It's already on the MSM. (nt)

[LSK]

5. referred to by who?

By Dennis Kucinich or a Majority of the House?

[MrCoffee]

7. i'm looking, but i *think* it would have just followed normal procedure

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Yes but the HOUSE refering it is a small but critical difference

[MrCoffee]

10. it was introduced and referred under Rule XII cl. 2

Referral
2. (a) The Speaker shall refer each bill, resolution, or other matter that relates to a subject listed under a standing committee named in clause 1 of rule X in accordance with the provisions of this clause.
(b) The Speaker shall refer matters under paragraph (a) in such manner as to ensure to the maximum extent feasible that each committee that has jurisdiction under clause 1 of rule X over the subject matter of a provision thereof may consider such provision and report to the House thereon. Precedents, rulings, or procedures in effect before the Ninety-fourth Congress shall be applied to referrals under this clause only to the extent that they will contribute to the achievement
of the objectives of this clause.
(c) In carrying out paragraphs (a) and (b) with respect to the referral of a matter, the Speaker--
(1) shall designate a committee of primary jurisdiction (except where he determines that extraordinary circumstances justify review by more than one committee as though primary);
(2) may refer the matter to one or more additional committees for consideration in sequence, either initially or after the matter has been reported by the committee of primary jurisdiction;
(3) may refer portions of the matter reflecting different subjects and jurisdictions to one or more additional committees;
(4) may refer the matter to a special, ad hoc committee appointed by the Speaker with the approval of the House, and including members of the committees of jurisdiction, for the specific purpose of considering that matter and reporting to the House thereon;
(5) may subject a referral to appropriate time limitations; and
(6) may make such other provision as may be considered appropriate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r110:3:./temp/~r110TWQCtg::
i hope this link is right. it's to the Congressional Record for the day HR 333 was 1st introduced

[onenote]

16. explain please?

In what way is the fact that resolution was referred back to the Judiciary Committe a "critical" difference from its initial referral.

[countryjake]

11. Exactly! A resolution on Cheney's Impeachment sent to committee by a

majority vote in the House!

Sounds a bit different than only 22 sponsor an Impeachment Resolution, eh?

I think that must be why Kucinich wanted it sent on to committee now, after they didn't table it...it holds an entirely different power than it did all summer.

Majority in the House vote to consider Resolution on Impeachment of the Vice President...how many in this nation, of either party, will thrill at the mere sound of that?

This gives us all a chance to re-contact our reps and express our views on Cheney.

[FourScore]

6. Rec 5

I thought that went too easy. I'm afraid this has all been for nothing, once again.:thumbsdown:

[LSK]

9. let me ask you this MrCoffee

What did you want to happen today?

[MrCoffee]

13. i wanted Hoyer to gavel DK's question down before the shitstorm started

not to give the R's the chance to get all freaky-deaky.

[LSK]

14. so you wanted the bill to die?

[MrCoffee]

17. did you think it had a chance?

i did not.

i'm glad DK brought it up, but i had a hunch that Pelosi lined up her hit squad to shoot it down (which was borne out by the original vote, before all hell broke loose). i don't think she figured the R's would pull their stunt.


Pelosi was clear that impeachment is off the table. the history of the bill makes it clear that the House leadership DOES NOT WANT TO MOVE ON IT. it's been sitting in House Judiciary for months, in a subcommittee that Conyers is on. Why hasn't action been taken yet? Why was DK forced to resort to a Rule IX question of the privileges of the House to get action on it?

of course i didn't want it to die. i just figured it would.