Posted on 12/14/2006 5:17:48 AM PST by AZRepublican
I am just curious about something....when Senate reconvines on Jan 4 they will be one vote short in adopting rules governing the senate's organization because Sen. Johnson will recovering and unable to cast a vote. Could republicans then control who heads to committees? I'd love to see Patrick Leahy get the boot.
If Johnson is in the hospital and cannot be sworn in on January 3, 2007, his seat is technically vacant. The citizens of South Dakota are entitled to two senators unless they agree to be represented by only one. If Johnson doesn't show up on Capitol Hill to be sworn in, the Governor should immediately appoint a replacement who will be able to be sworn in.
Why can't we do both? When the weight of the Senate and the future of the country is at stake, it's hard not to speculate. That being said, of course we hope that Senator Johnson can recover and fulfill his term.
I would pay to see that!
LOL!
Which could trigger another one of these episodes.......the next 6 to 8 days is going to be critical for Sen. Johnson...if they have to go back in that's not going to sound good for his health.
GOP is too public minded to use it so ruthlessly as did Daschle.
And I was happy to see Daschle pay the consequences for his actions. He did some rotten things and paid dearly for them. I don't believe the Republicans could ever do that.
Senators are only sworn in after an election.
Johnson was previously sworn in after his 2002 victory.
He doesn't need to be sworn in again at the beginning of the congress he is already a member.
Interesting technicality, if it applied.
Someone who had not been sworn in could not be expelled, nor resign!
Yes it does. The 17th A. gives the power to fill "vacancies" to the States. "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
Article I, Sec 3 says:"and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies."
What it doesn't do is define "vacancy".
I hope he recovers too but I do hope he resigns his seat.
I lived in Maryland for a bit (military) and it seemed that the Republicans even liked Mukluski. Do you think that is true for majority of Republicans. What I mean is that they don't think she is one of the lower than scum Democrats that most are. I don't know her well enough to make an opinion one way or the other.
With all due respect, the balance of power of half of the Legislative body, with the ability to confirm possibly 3 SC Justices over the next two years does not hinge on your Grandfather. I'm sad for the family, but heartless as it may sound, they really are of small concern to the 300 million other people who are directly effected by this.
Meanwhile the Republicans will tell us all how unfair this is and how angry they might get.
True. But clearly it is not in the power of a state to define 'vacancy'. However the Supreme Court or federal legislation could.
Here we have a serving member though. It would be in fact an expulsion of the member by the Supreme Court, a federal law, or a state (if it followed a federal definition of "vacancy")- a power the Constitution expressly reserved to the Senate itself and required to be done by a 2/3 majority.
The Democrats would never allow this constitutional procedure to foil their plans.
Good point.
When Senator Heinz (R-PA) died in a helicopter crash, the Democrat governor appointed a Democrat Senator. When the Republican Senator in GA died, the Democrat governor appointed a Democrat Senator. There is ample precedent for a governor to do whatever he wishes.
(In fact, here in WV the competition to be governor is fierce because that person can (someday....) appoint himself as a replacement for Senator Byrd.
So obviously if SD has a Republican governor, and there is a vacancy (which we all affirm we do not wish to see happen), and he appoints himself, that is what will happen and no one can stop it, least of all on partisan grounds.
According to an article I read this morning, a similar situation occurred in 1969 and a Senator from South Dakota (Mundt?) suffered some sort of dibilitation and "served" for 4 years as Senator for SD without attending a single session.
As importantly, I heard Tom Delay on a talk radio show yesterday afternoon. He said (of course) that he hopes that Johnson makes a full and speedy recovery. But, he added, none the less, "a vote or two means nothing because it really takes 60 votes to get anything done."
There are several avenues of approach. One would be for the State of SD to sue, based on the guarantee of two Senators, and that inability to function as a representative constitutes a vacancy.
Here we have a serving member though. It would be in fact an expulsion of the member by the Supreme Court, a federal law, or a state (if it followed a federal definition of "vacancy")- a power the Constitution expressly reserved to the Senate itself and required to be done by a 2/3 majority.
The "expulsion clause" is clearly in relation to sanctioning a member for conduct. Incapacity is not addressed in the Constitution. If the USSC ruled that incapacity was a de facto vacancy (defined as happening "by Resignation, or otherwise", a very vague word), then the expulsion clause would not apply. Likewise, the Senate does not need to expel a member who has died before a vacancy is declared.
I don't think he can appoint himself. One recent governor did, IIRC, resign with the understanding that the Lt. Gov. would appoint him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.