Posted on 01/05/2007 5:59:27 AM PST by shrinkermd
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Tim Johnson won a coveted chairmanship of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee Thursday, even though he is still in critical condition after emergency brain surgery last month.
The South Dakota Democrat remains in intensive care after suffering a brain hemorrhage Dec. 13 and missed the opening day of the Senate.
Johnson's office announced that he has been named chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs. The senator "will lose none of his rights during his absence" and his office remains open for business, said spokeswoman Julianne Fisher.
(Excerpt) Read more at rapidcityjournal.com ...
I've always said Democrat committee chairmen were brain dead.
It will be "Weekend at the Senate"
Yes..it is a long time without representation and he is 60 years old which to me means parts just don't heal and recover like a younger man.
Having said that, there is nothing constitutional that provides for an incapacitated senator to be replaced, whether he is incapacitated by:
...booze..ie Da Swimmer
...senility..ie The Grand Kleagle
or..
...stroke..ie Senator Johnson.
Can proxies be used in committee votes? If not, does this not leave his committees with even membership? What affect is a tie in a committee vote?
I can't answer any of your questions on committees. We will either have to wait and see or find an expert to give us the answers to your questions.
This is an appropriate note on which to open the new Democrat-controlled Congress, "The lights are on, but nobody's home."
At least he voted first!
Regards, Ivan
He is going to resign. This isn't a broken leg or even a heart attack. This is serious stuff and with any concern for his medical condition, both his family and his party will urge him to resign, not only for his constituency, but for the nation.
The 1st reports said it was Rockefeller. Learning now that was wrong.
The 17th amendment, like the 2nd amendment, is a welcome addition to the Consitution that gives power back to INDIVIDUALS instead of government elites. It also wonderfully compliments the 10th amendment, except for those who ignore the "or to the people" clause.
I'm a small government conservative. Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves, and people are perfectly capable of choosing their federal representatives. The last thing we need is bigger governemnt at the state level. If you perfer the outdated European style system where they have a "House of Lords" choosen by the "enlightened few", you're welcome to move there. I'm sure you'll love their aristocratic ways.
I know I'd wouldn't want my "state legislature" picking out what socks I wear for the day, let alone who my Senator should be. Most of them are crooked hacks who have re-districted themselves into office for life. We can't even "hold them accountable" because they run unopposed.
Last I checked, England has spent centuries trying to take AWAY power from the "House of Lords" and "reform" the system to the point where they are only a ceremonial "upper house" of Parliment, because people there do NOT like a bunch of unelected elitist twits running their lives and passing laws.
RECENT REFORM ATTEMTPS
The status of the House of Lords continues to be at the forefront of debate. Latest reform efforts has stalled (see Lords Reform). The Wakeham Commission proposed introducing a 20% elected element to the Lords, but this plan was widely criticised. A Joint Committee was established in 2001 to resolve the issue, but it reached no conclusion and instead gave Parliament seven options to choose from (fully appointed, 20% elected, 40% elected, 50% elected, 60% elected, 80%, and fully elected).
In a confusing series of votes in February 2003, all of these options were defeated. The 80% elected option fell short by just three votes in the Commons, because MPs favouring outright abolition voted against all the options.
[In the meantime] new peers are only created by appointment to the House of Lords.
A cross-party group of senior MPs (Ken Clarke, Robin Cook (deceased August 2005), Paul Tyler, Tony Wright and George Young) published a report in 2005 proposing that 70% of members of the House of Lords should be elected - each member for a single long term - by the single transferable vote system. Most of the remainder were to be appointed by a Commission to ensure a mix of "skills, knowledge and experience". This proposal was also not implemented. The Conservative Party favour an eighty-percent-elected Second Chamber, while the Liberal Democrats are calling for a fully elected Senate.
"Elect the Lords" is a cross-party campaign initiative that was set up to make the case for a predominantly elected Second Chamber in the run up to the 2005 general election. The Queen's Speeches of 2005 and 2006 both referred to Lords reform. The Times reported on July 19, 2005 that the Labour Party, like the Conservatives, would propose that the House of Lords be 80% elected and renamed the "Second Chamber". During 2006, a cross-party committee discussed Lords reform, with the aim of reaching a consensus on the issue.
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.