The quality of the following correspondence should be self explanatory. See if you can spot the problem.
I wanted to let you know that the Senator did not vote for this legislation, HR 3808, rather it passed by . This means that no one objected to the bill but individual records of each Senator’s position were not kept. Thankyou for writing in.
Derek Khanna (on behalf of Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts)
Thank you for responding. I am aware that The Senate's was a , and for the purpose of clarification, when you wrote, "no one objected to the bill", were you saying that Mr. Brown voiced no objection to what is, in my view, a very objectionable bill? If so, saying Senator Brown did not "vote" for the legislation would seem to be technically true, but, rather something else in reality. Please advise.
From Derek Khanna:
No one objected to the legislation. A large amount of legislation is done on the floor, often without physical quorum, through a unanimous consent vote. This means that unless someone objects it passes. Senator Brown did not object. He did not vote for or against the legislation.
I understand your concern for the legislation, it was vetoed by .
It was "pocket vetoed" by the President, which is a qualitatively different act, and I now have, for all intents and purposes, my answer. I am disappointed that Senator Brown did not voice a strenuous objection to a bill whose intent was an end run around proper legal process.
I made the same query concerning HR 3808 to Senator John Kerry's office and have yet to receive a reply. On that basis, and that alone, so far, the office of Senator Brown has the edge on his Democrat colleague. Finally, a vote where no one can be said to have either voted for or against a piece of legislation that ultimately passes is evidence of a deeply, not to say fatally flawed, system. I know what I won't be doing next Tuesday.