Something strange going on in the U.S. Senate. Yesterday and today they voted on...

[Tx4obama]

On the Motion for Attendance - Agreed to - Motion to Instruct the Sgt. at Arms

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm

I do not remember seeing that before - what's up with that?

[Politicalboi]

1. END OF TIMES!!!!!!!

Crazy ass Bachmann was right.

Hopefully they are going to arrest the GOP congress.

[octoberlib]

2. Could it be this?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-11.pdf


It wouldn't let me copy.

[Tx4obama]

5. Thanks for the link

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. It appears to be a motion to get the Sgt at Arms to find absent Senators.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/s121

It involves getting a quorum to vote.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%26*2D4QLO9%0A

Except when the Senate has invoked cloture, the presiding officer may not count to determine if a
quorum is present. When the absence of a quorum is suggested, therefore, the presiding officer
directs the clerk to call the roll. The Senate cannot resume its business until a majority of Senators
respond to the quorum call or unless, by unanimous consent, “further proceedings under the
quorum call are dispensed with” before the last Senator’s name has been called. If a quorum fails
to respond, the Senate may adjourn or take steps necessary to secure the attendance of enough
Senators to constitute a quorum. It usually takes the latter course by agreeing to a motion that
instructs the sergeant at arms to request the attendance of absent Senators.

[Tx4obama]

4. I'm still a bit confused though... because just about all of them showed up to vote on the motion

... the motion that tells the Sargent at Arms tell them to appear, but they were there for the 'vote' - so after the vote there would be no need to tell them to show up, cause they were there already.

Anyway, must be one of those confusing things that has a purpose but doesn't make much sense - LOL