Another Preview Of The Incoming Republican Congress

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:02 am

House Republicans Block Child Marriage Prevention Act

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:00 am

Seems that now, if one side of the House in in favor of something, the other side will be against it, just on principle.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:09 am

That's the function of a loyal opposition. What's destructive in the US legislature is the ability to block against a majority voting in favour. Our bicameral system allows blocking between houses but not indefinitely and it's mostly used to improve drafting and accommodate more points of view. Where it's employed on a point of principle, such as banning hunting with hounds for example, the bar eventually times out and the voice of the Commons majority has the final say.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:32 am

That's similar to how ours should function, too. The 60 vote super-majority is a courtesy (not a rule per se), but its become commonplace now. Every once in a while (as in the health care vote) they exempt the practice when legislation is deemed important enough to. Majority rule is supposed to be the proper procedure.

ignoreme · Post by **ignoreme** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:05 am

If you're going to comment on them voting against it, wouldn't it make sense to at least mention the why?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:20 am

...and develop comprehensive strategies to prevent such marriages around the world.

I'm at a loss as to why a Congress dominated by isolationists want to involve themselves in the goings on of other countries.

And, the R's can't block anything in the current Congress. Pass it now if it's so important.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:32 am

Don't we meddle enough in other countries' affairs? The bill is pretty pointless beyond us stating our opinion.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:40 am

BaghdadBob;1347099 wrote: I'm at a loss as to why a Congress dominated by isolationists want to involve themselves in the goings on of other countries.

And, the R's can't block anything in the current Congress. Pass it now if it's so important.I take it you were in favor of the bill?

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:45 am

Accountable;1347101 wrote: Don't we meddle enough in other countries' affairs? The bill is pretty pointless beyond us stating our opinion.

I'd have thought the bill would enable a Federal change within those US States which currently legalize child marriage within their jurisdiction. Or are you suggesting there's no such thing?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:49 am

ignoreme;1347095 wrote: If you're going to comment on them voting against it, wouldn't it make sense to at least mention the why?The article states both whys, the imagined why as well as the actual why. FWIW, assuming you're talking to me, other than the thread title, I didn't comment on anything, I merely posted the article.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 10:55 am

spot;1347108 wrote: I'd have thought the bill would enable a Federal change within those US States which currently legalize child marriage within their jurisdiction. Or are you suggesting there's no such thing?
It's international in nature, not domestic.

From S.987: International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

Official Summary

12/1/2010--Passed Senate amended. International Protecting Girls by Preventing Child Marriage Act of 2010 -

(Sec. 3)

Defines "child marriage" as the marriage of a girl or boy not yet the minimum age for marriage stipulated in law in the country in which the girl or boy is a resident, or where there is no such law, under the age of 18.

(Sec. 4)

Expresses the sense of Congress that:

(1) child marriage is a violation of human rights and its prevention and elimination should be a U.S. foreign policy goal; and

(2) expanding educational opportunities for girls, economic opportunities for women, and reducing maternal and child mortality are critical to achieving the Millennium Development Goals and U.S. global health and development objectives, including efforts to prevent HIV/AIDS.

(Sec. 5)

Authorizes the President to provide assistance, including through multilateral, nongovernmental, and faith-based organizations, to prevent child marriage in developing countries and to promote the educational, health, economic, social, and legal empowerment of girls and women. Sets forth priority assistance criteria. Directs the President to establish a multi-year strategy to prevent child marriage and promote the empowerment of girls at risk of child marriage in developing countries, and should include addressing the unique needs, vulnerabilities, and potential of girls under age 18 in developing countries. Sets forth strategy elements.

(Sec. 6)

Expresses the sense of Congress that the President and all relevant agencies should collect and make available data on:

(1) the incidence of child marriage in countries that receive U.S. foreign or development assistance where the practice of child marriage is prevalent; and

(2) the impact of the incidence of child marriage and the age at marriage on progress in meeting key development goals.

(Sec. 7)

Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to require that Department of State country reports on human rights practices include a description of the status of child marriage for each country in which child marriage is prevalent.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:10 am

Ahso!;1347104 wrote: I take it you were in favor of the bill?

I'm in favor of Congress only working within its Constitutional authority. This somehow qualifies?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 11:22 am

BaghdadBob;1347113 wrote: I'm in favor of Congress only working within its Constitutional authority. This somehow qualifies? Are you saying the bill is unconstitutional? The republicans didn't claim it to be unconstitutional, in fact it passed the senate by unanimous consent. If it is indeed shown to be constitutional, you'd be in favor of it?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:03 pm

Ahso!;1347117 wrote: Are you saying the bill is unconstitutional? The republicans didn't claim it to be unconstitutional, in fact it passed the senate by unanimous consent. If it is indeed shown to be constitutional, you'd be in favor of it?

With all of their multiculturalism and diversity, why are the donks injecting themselves into this issue?

Oops! Answered my question...

S. 987 authorizes $108 million over 5 years without sufficient oversight of the taxpayers' money.

There are also concerns that funding will be directed to NGOs that promote and perform abortion and efforts to combat child marriage could be usurped as a way to overturn pro-life laws.

Umm, that would be a neah.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:10 pm

Accountable;1347112 wrote: It's international in nature, not domestic.

The definition makes the entire matter meaningless...Defines "child marriage" as the marriage of a girl or boy not yet the minimum age for marriage stipulated in law in the country in which the girl or boy is a resident, or where there is no such law, under the age of 18.So where the national law allows minors to marry at 14 the bill has no comment to make? Whereas any "marriage" in any country where one of the participants is under the legal age to marry obviously isn't a legal marriage anyway. So what's left? The act applies to nobody.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:19 pm

BaghdadBob;1347123 wrote: With all of their multiculturalism and diversity, why are the donks injecting themselves into this issue?

Oops! Answered my question...

Umm, that would be a neah.So, you're a party-liner. If democrats were to oppose the legislation, they're isolationists, but when republicans oppose it, they're principled (even when the rhetoric is untrue).

GOP concerns over abortion and the cost of the bill are puzzling. According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimate, "CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost $67 million over the 2011-2015 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. Enacting S. 987 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply to this legislation."

...

On abortion, the bill never mentions either "family planning" or "abortion."

Friday morning, Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), who voted for the bill, took the House floor and called out his Republican colleagues for their objections to the measure, saying such arguments amounted to nothing but politics:

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:23 pm

spot;1347126 wrote: The definition makes the entire matter meaningless...Defines "child marriage" as the marriage of a girl or boy not yet the minimum age for marriage stipulated in law in the country in which the girl or boy is a resident, or where there is no such law, under the age of 18.So where the national law allows minors to marry at 14 the bill has no comment to make? Whereas any "marriage" in any country where one of the participants is under the legal age to marry obviously isn't a legal marriage anyway. So what's left? The act applies to nobody.That's pretty much how I saw it, too.

BaghdadBob;1347123 wrote: There are also concerns that funding will be directed to NGOsWhat is NGO?

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:31 pm

Ahso!;1347130 wrote: So, you're a party-liner. So, you didn't understand my previous posts re: Constitutional bounds? BTW, re: R's objecting to the legislation on Constitutional grounds...both parties are guilty. One much more so than the other if only for the prevailing views of it's membership.

If democrats were to oppose the legislation, they're isolationists, but when republicans oppose it, they're principled (even when the rhetoric is untrue).

Wrong conclusion. The question is why are isolationists interjecting themselves into this issue. I answered the question for you above.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:34 pm

Accountable;1347131 wrote: That's pretty much how I saw it, too.The confusion over "child marriage" is the custom whereby cultures recognize betrothal below that age. If that's called "child marriage" then the issue should spell out that the campaign to eradicate it has nothing to do with sexual relations.

If, on the other hand, it's under-age sexual relationships being targetted, I see no problem with a bill encouraging the international criminalization of rape, with a recognition of a universal age of consent below which sexual relations are defined by statute as rape. But that's an entirely different matter to the first.

I wonder which one the bill's sponsors think they were aiming at?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:58 pm

BaghdadBob;1347132 wrote: So, you didn't understand my previous posts re: Constitutional bounds? BTW, re: R's objecting to the legislation on Constitutional grounds...both parties are guilty. One much more so than the other if only for the prevailing views of it's membership.

Wrong conclusion. The question is why are isolationists interjecting themselves into this issue. I answered the question for you above.Perhaps you're simply wrong and both sides believe it is constitutional. Someone would need to raise the issue with the courts to know for sure.....or they could just ask you, I guess.

I believe your quote above was I'm at a loss as to why a Congress dominated by isolationists want to involve themselves in the goings on of other countries.

And, the R's can't block anything in the current Congress. Pass it now if it's so important.And the answer you claimed to have provided included false information.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:01 pm

Accountable;1347131 wrote:

What is NGO?I believe he means Non-Government Organisations.

BaghdadBob · Post by **BaghdadBob** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:15 pm

Ahso!;1347135 wrote: Perhaps you're simply wrong and both sides believe it is constitutional. Someone would need to raise the issue with the courts to know for sure.....or they could just ask you, I guess.

I believe your quote above was And the answer you claimed to have provided included false information.

I was referring at first to the House and, you nor I need a law degree to understand the fundamentals of the Constitution.

BTW, do you support this waste? Is marriage a federal issue?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:42 pm

BaghdadBob;1347139 wrote: I was referring at first to the House and, you nor I need a law degree to understand the fundamentals of the Constitution.This then is not so fundementally obvious to you.

BaghdadBob;1347139 wrote: BTW, do you support this waste? Is marriage a federal issue?Remove the word 'waste' and rework your question, then perhaps, you might get an answer.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 1:54 pm

spot;1347133 wrote: The confusion over "child marriage" is the custom whereby cultures recognize betrothal below that age. If that's called "child marriage" then the issue should spell out that the campaign to eradicate it has nothing to do with sexual relations.

If, on the other hand, it's under-age sexual relationships being targetted, I see no problem with a bill encouraging the international criminalization of rape, with a recognition of a universal age of consent below which sexual relations are defined by statute as rape. But that's an entirely different matter to the first.

I wonder which one the bill's sponsors think they were aiming at?My reading of this is that the U.S. does not want to dictate (at least not openly) laws of other countries regarding age of marriage. I think the gist of the legislation lies in sections 5,6 and 7. Its legislation to put pressure on other countries through financial means to adopt a law where none exists, and enforcement of new and current law. My guess is that there is pressure behind the scenes to get countries to adopt a uniform law of 18 as a minimum age for marriage.

I think section four is the PR (justification) part of the legislation.

Post by **spot** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:16 pm

Ahso!;1347147 wrote: My guess is that there is pressure behind the scenes to get countries to adopt a uniform law of 18 as a minimum age for marriage.

I hesitate to point out that the United Kingdom has a uniform age of sixteen. Perhaps we'll be subject to US sanctions if we don't raise the limit.

Are you hinting that the US might itself at some stage adopt a uniform law of 18 as a minimum age for marriage? What would happen to all those jokes about redneck mountain men?

eta: Just to clarify, UK law does not recognize any form of child marriage performed within this country. The marriage service implies sexual maturity quite explicitly, as "considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained; first, It was ordained for the procreation of children ..." indicates. Secondly, non-consummation is still a perfectly valid ground for annulling a marriage in UK law.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:57 pm

Ahso!;1347147 wrote: My reading of this is that the U.S. does not want to dictate (at least not openly) laws of other countries regarding age of marriage. I think the gist of the legislation lies in sections 5,6 and 7. Its legislation to put pressure on other countries through financial means to adopt a law where none exists, and enforcement of new and current law. My guess is that there is pressure behind the scenes to get countries to adopt a uniform law of 18 as a minimum age for marriage.

I think section four is the PR (justification) part of the legislation.
Then the left side of The Party is as imperialistic as the right.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:31 pm

Accountable;1347164 wrote: Then the left side of The Party is as imperialistic as the right.It's getting there.

rgOFR · Post by **rgOFR** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:44 pm

How did the republicans stop this in the house? I did not find that in the article and if I missed it in a post I am sorry. They are still currently the minority party in the house with no right to filibuster?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 5:55 pm

rgOFR;1347191 wrote: How did the republicans stop this in the house? I did not find that in the article and if I missed it in a post I am sorry. They are still currently the minority party in the house with no right to filibuster?"The House version, introduced by Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) and Ander Crenshaw (R-Fla.), had 112 cosponsors. What's interesting is that some of them -- such as Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) -- actually voted against the bill. In the end, only 12 Republicans backed the measure; nine Democrats defected to the GOP side. So what happened?

This week, a GOP whip alert went out about the child marriage legislation, saying that House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Committee on Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) all oppose it. The email:"

rgOFR · Post by **rgOFR** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:00 pm

That does not explain how the minority party killed something in the house of representives, no matter how many times you quote the same thing.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:39 pm

Ahso!;1347074 wrote: House Republicans Block Child Marriage Prevention ActI still don't get it. Is this a big deal?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:46 pm

Accountable;1347206 wrote: I still don't get it. Is this a big deal?Probably further down the road, it looks to me like a foundation for future arm twisting (negotiating). Obviously everyone in the senate thought enough to advance it. It looks like everyone was double crossed by the gop leaders in the house.

rgOFR · Post by **rgOFR** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:59 pm

Let me quote myself,

"That does not explain how the minority party killed something in the house of representives, no matter how many times you quote the same thing. "

librtyhead · Post by **librtyhead** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:21 pm

Have the Chinese even been consulted on this?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:25 pm

:yh_rotfl

xfrodobagginsx · Post by **xfrodobagginsx** » Sat Dec 18, 2010 9:39 pm

Thank God for the Republicans...Let's throw out those Anti-American, Anti-Christian, Anti-Family Progressives, Liberal Democrats.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Sun Dec 19, 2010 5:16 am

xfrodobagginsx;1347252 wrote: Thank God for the Republicans...Let's throw out those Anti-American, Anti-Christian, Anti-Family Progressives, Liberal Democrats.Ah, critical thinkers.