WWTBAM Bored

Just thought I'd let you test your knowledge:

An event occurred today, Friday, August 8, in the Senate which hasn't happened since 1947. What was it and why did it happen?

Hrmm....everyone got along and went out for pizza beer after work?

An event occurred today, Friday, August 8, in the Senate which hasn't happened since 1947.

They celebrated my birthday? Waaaaaaa!!!!!

Im_Ace wrote:Just thought I'd let you test your knowledge:

An event occurred today, Friday, August 8, in the Senate which hasn't happened since 1947. What was it and why did it happen?

Based on the poking around I've done, the Senate was in session but no floor votes were taken. They probably did it to avoid allowing Shrub to make recess appointments. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Im_Ace wrote:Just thought I'd let you test your knowledge:

An event occurred today, Friday, August 8, in the Senate which hasn't happened since 1947. What was it and why did it happen?

Based on the poking around I've done, the Senate was in session but no floor votes were taken. They probably did it to avoid allowing Shrub to make recess appointments. --Bob

How does that stop recess appointments?

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Im_Ace wrote:Just thought I'd let you test your knowledge:

An event occurred today, Friday, August 8, in the Senate which hasn't happened since 1947. What was it and why did it happen?

Based on the poking around I've done, the Senate was in session but no floor votes were taken. They probably did it to avoid allowing Shrub to make recess appointments. --Bob

How does that stop recess appointments?

If the Senate's in session, it's not in recess. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Im_Ace wrote:Just thought I'd let you test your knowledge:

An event occurred today, Friday, August 8, in the Senate which hasn't happened since 1947. What was it and why did it happen?

Based on the poking around I've done, the Senate was in session but no floor votes were taken. They probably did it to avoid allowing Shrub to make recess appointments. --Bob

They couldn't take a vote, because they were all watching the opening ceremonies.

For the handful of you who actually want to know the answer:

In fear that W would make "recess appointments", the leaders of the Senate have steadfastly refused to recess. That means that the Senate must convene each day.

Last Friday, with most of the Senators gone, Senator Blanche Lincoln was designated to convene the Senate, and thirty seconds later, bang down the gavel to end the session.

But there was a problem......

The Senator from Arkansas didn't show up at 11:00, the designated time at which the Senate was to convene.

So, what the Hell happened?

Senate rules indicate that a Senator must bang the gavel, but no Senator was there. Senate rules also indicate that the Secretary of the Senate, a position filled by a vote of the full Senate, may preside if no one else is available.

And that's exactly what happened. Nancy Erikson, the current secretary of the Senate banged the gavel, and thirty seconds later banged it again.

This is the first time that this has been done since 1947.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Way cool!

Thanks, Ace.

Im_Ace wrote:Senate rules indicate that a Senator must bang the gavel, but no Senator was there. Senate rules also indicate that the Secretary of the Senate, a position filled by a vote of the full Senate, may preside if no one else is available.

And that's exactly what happened. Nancy Erikson, the current secretary of the Senate banged the gavel, and thirty seconds later banged it again.

This is the first time that this has been done since 1947.

This is a cool piece of trivia, but the rules have me dumbfounded. Ms. Erickson, as Secretary of the Senate, can preside over a session of the Senate with no actual Senators in attendance? Could she continue to do so 365 days a year?

MarleysGh0st wrote:

Im_Ace wrote:Senate rules indicate that a Senator must bang the gavel, but no Senator was there. Senate rules also indicate that the Secretary of the Senate, a position filled by a vote of the full Senate, may preside if no one else is available.

And that's exactly what happened. Nancy Erikson, the current secretary of the Senate banged the gavel, and thirty seconds later banged it again.

This is the first time that this has been done since 1947.

This is a cool piece of trivia, but the rules have me dumbfounded. Ms. Erickson, as Secretary of the Senate, can preside over a session of the Senate with no actual Senators in attendance? Could she continue to do so 365 days a year?

Would it make any real difference if she did?

Wait! What am I saying? Of course it would! So many fewer things would be screwed up beyond all recognition...