Johnson, hospitalized, becomes chairman of spending subcommittee (Senator Tim Johnson)

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.

I'm nearly certain that since he cant breathe on his own the part of his brain that is damaged controls all his vital functions.

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.

>> The 17th Amendment is one of several ugly ink blotch on rather beautiful Constitution. <<

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 If you perfer the outdated European style system where they have a "House of Lords" choosen by the "enlightened few", you're welcome to move there.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.

Ivan, you need to tell some of the "Abolish the 17th amendment" Fan Club here about that lovely "House of Lords" you have in England, the one where all their members are blue-blooded elites duly appointed by goverment officials and the people have no say in the matter. The "Abolish the 17th amendment" club thinks it's a lovely system you have in Europe and misses the good ol' colonial days.

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.

Yikes! Did you hear that? They want to "Elect the Lords" It seems the "Conservative Party" in England wants a "17th amendment" type reform to the "House of Lords", as is the overwheming consensus of all political parties. Imagine that, they'd allow BOTH chambers to be popularly elected.

How can this be? Why would they want to "reform" the House of Lords by letting voters actually ELECT them? How silly. Don't the people of England realize how SUPERIOR their upper-house is to the U.S. system? It's sooooo much better to be governed by a bunch of appointed aristocrats that can't be held accountable.

Silly british, trying for years to "reform" their system. You better go over and tell them how great their group of snobbish blue-blooded "appointed Labour Party Life Peers" are. While you're at it, give 'em all a salary increase for their hard work reigning over the little people.

There is no direct line from my choices in the state legislature to the federal government. The 17th Amendment severed that, I guess you could care less or maybe you would rather just have a pure democracy and damed the Republic.

And billy, there were more honorable statesman before the 17th amendment than after. Also, there was less corruption on a Federal level than before the 17th amendment (Income tax helps in aiding the current corruption though).

I call my Senators quite often. All I get are interns and an answer machines.

Do you know who I see out and about and can talk to face to face? My State Rep. I know where they live as well as my neighbors. Also, you do know they are up for ELECTIONS from time to time.

You talk of giving power to government elites is hilarious considering the names of Lautenburg, Jeffords, Mondale, Nelson, Byrd, Rockefeller etc... who are stationed there for life (If they want), all they have to do is grease the right people just like before but know with the power of a national party behind them.

I would rather my chances of the State Leg deciding and having that Senator under their thumbs than a self-absorbed individual beholden to himself and not the State he or she is appointed to represent.

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.