QUOTE (Ken MacLeod @ 24 May 2010, 21:58 )
Mr. MacLeod, for himself and others, offers
A BILL
To reinstate the exclusionary rule for a period of five years.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC I. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the "Exclusionary Rule Reinstatement Act".
SEC. II. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
1. That the Supreme Court, in the 2022 case of Catalano v. Gilman, struck down the long-standing rule prohibiting the introduction of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment protections of property against unreasonable searches and seizures, known as the exclusionary rule.
2. That the effect of this ruling is to remove some of the disincentives to the illegal acquisition of evidence in criminal cases.
3. That the exclusionary rule, while serving an important purpose, was as, a matter of policy, imperfect.
4. That the invalidation of the exclusionary rule as a judge-created principle returns this matter to the legislative branch.
5. That potential alternatives to the exclusionary rule exist and should be considered.
6. That it is the responsibility of Congress to uphold the rights of criminal accused in federal prosecutions, and of the states to protect those rights in prosecutions under Regional laws.
7. That notwithstanding any of the foregoing, it would be desireable to reinstate the exclusionary rule while alternatives are considered.
8. That the reinstatement of the exclusionary rule by an Act of Congress would not permit any future modification of that rule by judicial decree.
SEC. III. REINSTATEMENT OF EXCLUSIONARY RULE.
Insofar as it pertains to the prosecution of any person in federal court, including any military courts-martial or military tribunal, the legal principle known as the exclusionary rule, as it existed prior to the ruling of the Supreme Court in the 2022 case of Catalano v. Gilman, is hereby reinstated.
SEC. IV. SUNSET PROVISION AND INTENT OF CONGRESS
It is the intent of Congress to consider the exclusionary rule and potential alternatives, the comparative benefits and detriments of each; accordingly this law shall be considered of null effect five years following its passage into law.
SEC. V. EFFECTIVENESS.
This bill shall have the full effect of law immediately following its Constitutional passage.
Cloture Begins On June 23th @ 21:48
Aye:Sorenson
Nay:Present:
Brocklin
23 June 2010, 17:29
Move for UC.
I withdraw my motion and move to strike Section IV, Mme. President, and yield.
Raddi
24 June 2010, 15:01
Mme. President,
I second.
I yield.
So noted. Twenty-four hours on the Gerrard Amendment.
Brocklin
24 June 2010, 20:24
AYE
Jack Stone
24 June 2010, 20:32
Nay.
Raddi
24 June 2010, 22:33
Aye
McCloud
25 June 2010, 08:57
Aye
Kelly Selous
25 June 2010, 12:21
Nay
Gerrard Passes. Debate continues.
Jefferson Pooty
25 June 2010, 23:31
The Vice President shall take up the gavel for the remainder of this debate
Brocklin
26 June 2010, 07:34
With the passage of my amendment, I vote AYE on CLOTURE; and move for Unanimous Consent, Mr. President.
I yield.
I object and vote Nay on cloture, yielding my time.
Jefferson Pooty
26 June 2010, 09:46
motion for UC recognized and objected to. debate continues
Jefferson Pooty
26 June 2010, 09:47
Cloture
Aye - 5
Sorenson
Gerrard
McLaggen
Everhardt
Jackson
Nay - 2
Reiber
Justice
Present
Not Voting - 9
Buford T Justice
26 June 2010, 10:34
NAY on CLOTURE
Raddi
26 June 2010, 20:03
Aye on cloture.
McCloud
26 June 2010, 21:07
Aye on cloture
Jacob Black Deer
30 June 2010, 14:18
AYE on cloture.
Mr. President,
I move to amend. I believe that the sunset provision is a good one for determining whether or not there are better alternatives to the exclusionary rule and for making sure that any alternatives are adequately addressed without falling to the wayside due to ease.
QUOTE
SEC. IV. SUNSET PROVISION AND INTENT OF CONGRESS
It is the intent of Congress to consider the exclusionary rule and potential alternatives, the comparative benefits and detriments of each; accordingly this law shall be considered of null effect three years following its passage into law.
I yield.
Buford T Justice
03 July 2010, 05:58
Second.
Brocklin
03 July 2010, 06:14
Mr. President,
I ask you rule the Reiber amendment out of order, since it's an almost exact copy of the removed section.
I yield.
Mr. President,
The difference between my amendment and the removed text is a total of a not-insignificant 730 days, the time in which an elected member of the House of Representatives is in office per term. How is that nearly identical?
I yield.
Brocklin
03 July 2010, 07:05
Mr. President,
So I guess you'd think it's perfectly legit to consider identical amendments with different times for expiration until one passes?
I yield.
Mr. President,
When there is a significant divergence between the original timeframe offered and the amended timeframe offered, yes. If I were to have amended the bill to create an expiration 1,824 days after the passage of this bill - exactly one day less than five years - I would expect the President of the Senate to rule it as being out of order for being virtually identical to the original language removed from the bill. Does the lady really believe the difference between 5 years and 3 years to be insignificant?
I yield.
Brocklin
03 July 2010, 07:23
Mr. President,
I don't believe that difference to be insignificant, but the gentleman himself voted against my original amendment, thus supported a sunset provision after five years. Why three years now? I didn't see him making that amendment during the first week of debate, when the bill already had a different sunset provision. Will the gentleman admit he just wants to reinstate any sunset provison in the bill?
I yield.
Mr. President,
Certainly, Mr. President, I will admit it. I would like to reinstate the original Sunset Provision to five years, but seeing as that would be out of order and that too much time has elapsed to reconsider the Gerrard amendment, I have proposed this one in the hopes that both sides of this debate would find it more amenable so we can obtain cloture on the bill while still being in order by the rules. I'm not sure what it is the lady is getting at.
I yield.
Brocklin
03 July 2010, 09:10
What I'm getting at, Mr. President, is that an amendment can't completely remove the intent of a previous amendment - there's a reason the motion to reconsider exists, after all.
Motions to add aren't any different than motions to remove. Just like you can't just move to strike a just added section, you can't move to reinstate it without a motion to reconsider. The gentleman's amendment would completely remove my amendment's intent, by the gentleman's own admission. Therefore, I believe it should be out of order.
I yield.
Mr. President,
The argument made by the lady from Michigan is convoluted and, in my opinion, slightly ridiculous. The Senate as a whole has never taken into account intent when it comes to the proposition of amendments...it is why the President of the Senate has no power to render amendments dilatory due to conflict with the intent of the legislation of the bill, and why I see it to be no different a situation in the case of the amendments. I'm sorry the lady doesn't like my amendment and I encourage her if she objects so strongly to vote against it, but I think it unreasonable to demand that this body's long-standing rules relating to "intent" be disregarded in the name of her sensibilities.
I yield.
Mr. President,
I would also like to note that at some point should we want this to pass, someone is going to have to agree to some sort of compromise. I'm willing to settle for a shorter term on the sunset provision, but I believe that Congress should demand of ourselves that we weigh alternatives to the exclusionary rule that may be better than the original system as was originally provided in the bill. Perhaps someone would like to come forth and pitch something?
I yield.
Brocklin
03 July 2010, 09:53
QUOTE (Cav @ 03 July 2010, 09:42 )
The argument made by the lady from Michigan is convoluted and, in my opinion, slightly ridiculous. The Senate as a whole has never taken into account intent when it comes to the proposition of amendments...
Perhaps my wording was a little bit confusing - the gentleman's amendment
would completely remove my amendment. Forget the intentions, you can't do that with an amendment, that's why there's a motion to reconsider.
And I'm sorry if the gentleman didn't like my amendment. He had 48 hours to move to reconsider. If he didn't, it's not my fault, but we can't just change Senate rules to meet his goals.
Mr. President, I yield.
Buford T Justice
03 July 2010, 09:59
Mr President,
The lady's amendment added nothing to the bill, hence it's impossible to actually remove her amendment.
I yield.
Brocklin
03 July 2010, 10:02
QUOTE (Buford T Justice @ 03 July 2010, 09:59 )
Mr President,
The lady's amendment added nothing to the bill, hence it's impossible to actually remove her amendment.
I yield.
Please, a motion to amend is a motion to amend, whether it's to add or to remove. My amendment would be "removed" if the section it removed was reinstated. It's quite simple, Mr. President.
I yield.
OOC: I don't know why we're arguing about Senate rules, but it's fun so far
I'd love to continue, but I'm out for a while
McCloud
03 July 2010, 10:11
Mr. President,
I'm really not sure what all the hubbub is about exactly. Like my friends and colleagues from Michigan and Texas have stated, it's impossible to remove her amendment now that the 48 hours to reconsider have passed. We can't just bend the senate rules every time the gentleman from Washington feels appropriate. It's not a matter of policy but rather a matter of maintaining the rules which have kept this body in order for some 200 years.
I yield.
Mr. President,
The lady is arguing the barest and most subjective of technicalities. The gentleman from Texas is correct in that her amendment added nothing to the bill, only removed the sunset provision. If she would like to move the sunset provision beyond negotiation, she is free to amend the bill to state such. Until then, I would say that so long as I am not very blatantly trying to reinstate the moved text in its entirety through something like the minus one day effect I mentioned, my amendment does not fall out of Senate rules.
Further, would the lady like to offer an alternative suggestion to what action could be taken to pass this bill?
I yield.
QUOTE (Clinton Everhardt @ 03 July 2010, 11:11 )
Mr. President,
I'm really not sure what all the hubbub is about exactly. Like my friends and colleagues from Michigan and Texas have stated, it's impossible to remove her amendment now that the 48 hours to reconsider have passed. We can't just bend the senate rules every time the gentleman from Washington feels appropriate. It's not a matter of policy but rather a matter of maintaining the rules which have kept this body in order for some 200 years.
I yield.
Mr. President,
I can not remove that which has no presence in the bill. You can't divide a zero.
I yield.
Jefferson Pooty
03 July 2010, 10:18
The amendment from the gentleman from the Northwest IS is order. 1) It is significantly different than the one that was proposed by the Senator from the Midwest, of which there is ample precedent, and thus eligible to be voted on. 2) The official Senate rules state "A motion to amend may include amendments to any part of the bill, excepting only the name and findings, and may contain any provision themselves."QUOTE
SEC. IV. SUNSET PROVISION AND INTENT OF CONGRESS
It is the intent of Congress to consider the exclusionary rule and potential alternatives, the comparative benefits and detriments of each; accordingly this law shall be considered of null effect three years following its passage into law.
24 hours to vote on Reiber
McCloud
03 July 2010, 10:22
Mr. President,
If the gentleman is so certain that he is correct, then I merely ask him to find precedent on the matter. If there is not any, which I suspect to be the case, then we're just going by theory here until we can get official confirmation from the parliamentarian.
I yield.
Mr. President,
I would argue that my amendments to the amendment provided by the Senator from Kentucky to
this legislation significantly affected the ultimate intent, if not the author's intent than the written outcome of the legislation, to no complaint on procedure.
I yield.
Jefferson Pooty
03 July 2010, 10:29
QUOTE (Clinton Everhardt @ 03 July 2010, 11:22 )
Mr. President,
If the gentleman is so certain that he is correct, then I merely ask him to find precedent on the matter. If there is not any, which I suspect to be the case, then we're just going by theory here until we can get official confirmation from the parliamentarian.
I yield.
1) This body just significantly amended an amendment to the American Education Reform and Graduation Promotion Act from a mandate to an option, something the regions already have the option of doing thus making the amendment basically meaningless. Reiber 2) I would also direct the gentleman's attention to debate last session on the Burmese Freedom Act. During that debate the former senator from the Northwest made the following amendment. It was defeated then a motion was made to reconsider. That motion was also defeated. The gentleman from Appalachia the made the following amendment. His amendment contained language in section 5.1 that meant virtually the same thing as the defeated amendment but because it was significantly different it was in order and voted on.
As you can see it is NOT just theory but established precedent as I stated.
Brocklin
03 July 2010, 10:37
NAY on REIBER.
I'll remember for the future you only need to slightly change an amendment for it to be in order again, Mr. President.
I yield.
Mr. President,
Just earlier in this debate, the lady declared when I made a reference to the difference of two years that:
QUOTE (Abby Gerrard)
So first the lady concedes that the amendment wasn't an insignificant change and rather that it was the intent that mattered, and now we're back to "slight" changes which she admitted were not slight. However, I must ask why it is she has felt the need to inform this body that she will remember the ruling.
I yield.
Mr. President,
I would also like to bring forth the precedent stated by the Vice President.
I yield.
Jack Stone
03 July 2010, 11:14
Aye on Reiber.
Buford T Justice
03 July 2010, 11:21
AYE on REIBER
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.