Senate balance pivots on ailing Democrat (Johnson)

Oops, I meant 50 to 49, not 50 to 45.

The South Dakota legislature could still pass legislation that would affect the time period after passage. If Senator Johnson still is incapacitated after passage of such legislation, the governor could appoint either a permanent or temporary replacement.

Does the term ex post facto mean anything to you?

If Lieberman were to suddenly not caucus with the Dhimmis and abstained in voting on the control of the Senate, it would tip to the GOP, I think.

By caucusing with the Democrats Lieberman is chairman of the homeland security committee. Why would he give that up to switch to the Republicans?

Does the term ex post facto mean anything to you?

How is it ex post facto if they pass a law, and the senator is unable to exercise his duties as senator during the period after the law goes into effect? Lets say they pass the law and it is signed and goes into effect immediately. A medical examination made after the law goes into effect shows he will be unable to resume his duty for several months if ever. The governor then acts to appoint either a permanent or temporary replacement.

A couple of problems with that. One, there is no provision in the Constitution for a temporary senator. Either the seat is vacant or it is not. If vacant, the Constitution allows the state to decide how to fill a seat if it falls vacant. If the governor of South Dakota appoints a replacement for Johnson then he or she is the senator period, and under current state law he or she holds the seat until the next general election. So what happens if Johnson recovers and reaches a point where he could have resumed his duties? You've stripped him of the office he was elected to. You have, in effect, expelled him from the Senate which, according to Article I, Section 5 requires a 2/3rds votes. You don't see any sort of Constitutional issues with that?

Even if it were Constitutional in the first place, your proposed law changes the conditions that were in place when Johnson was elected. It, in effect, makes illegal that which was legal when it happened. Johnson's affliction did not change his status as a senator when he was stricken. You want to change his status after the fact. That's what makes it ex post facto.

I don't say it's remotely likely, just a thought experiment, if you will. If the Dhimmis start to push to break off funding for the war in Iraq, who knows how it might play out? And, the GOP could also name Lieberman Chairman of Homeland Security.

And, the GOP could also name Lieberman Chairman of Homeland Security.

The Democrats could let Lieberman be chairman because it didn't cost them anything - he was already ranking member and in line anyway. For the Republicans to name him chair they would have to screw over Susan Collins. They'd have to do that to some senior Republican on any committee the let Lieberman head. Are they willing to do that to one of their own just to attract a turncoat, who might just turn back to the Democrats at any time it suited him?

And just as obvious is the fact the Federal Constitution cannot be used to force a State today to replace an incapacitated US Senator. Since the South Dakota Legislature did not see fit to legislate a replacement mechanism Senator Johnson remains a US Senator until death or resignation. The Federal Government has no say in this case.

That was also the choice of the legislature of the State of South Dakota. Ex post facto laws do not apply to his status in office. Obviously.

dvwjr

This could be one person in a PVS that liberals will assure isn't starved to death...

This needs a huge BUMP!

What other proof is needed to display the stupidity of the RAT's.