Posted on 09/03/2009 3:18:07 AM PDT by Scanian
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. ~Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution ~ Through the chance of history and some political maneuvering, the fate of ObamaCare could fall upon the decision of a single man who has never been elected to national office. If the circumstances weren't so serious it would be a comedy of errors that leads us to where we are today.
On Monday, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick announced that on January 19th the special election to fill the seat left vacant by Senator Kennedy's death would be held. Governor Patrick said he continues to "press for a change in the state law to allow him to appoint an interim replacement." In his final days Senator Kennedy also urged the state to adopt legislation to allow Governor Patrick to appoint an interim (Democrat) in hopes it would give the Senate the filibuster-proof majority needed to ram a universal healthcare bill down the throats of an increasingly skeptical American public.
The grand irony of this donnybrook is that in 2004 Senator Kennedy urged the state to adopt the current law to prevent then Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican to serve out Senator John Kerry's term if he had been elected President. This progressive "I can have my cake and eat it too" mantra is just another turgid display of arrogance in their fluid understanding of law and the motions they take to change the rules to meet their expectations. But this comedy has an earlier chapter.
In 1913 progressives led the in charge that changed the way America has selected Senators ever since. "We The People" are represented in the US House of Representatives based on population. Senators are the states' representatives and were appointed by their state legislatures (usually nominated by the governor). The Senate was typically the more conservative legislative house, which did not suit the populist needs of the progressive movement. So summoning an emergency -- political infighting in state legislatures leaves states unrepresented in the Senate -- and passed the Seventeenth Amendment.
The Seventeenth Amendment created direct elections for Senators which resulted in the destruction of the founders' intent for the Senate and created a second "at-large" house of representatives that emasculated state sovereignty and made it susceptible to progressive populism. Ironically, (again) if the progressives who enacted the Seventeenth Amendment had left well enough alone we wouldn't even be having this discussion and Governor Patrick would nominate the Democrat of his choice which would immediately be approved by their compliant Democrat legislature. It will be done under the notion of an "emergency" that the state is not fully represented in a major national debate, despite the fact that Kennedy has been (understandably) absent most of the year and John Kerry has one of the most abysmal Senatorial attendance records in history.
HAHA!!!
>HAHA!!!
You took the words right out of my mouth.
As one poster pointed out, as bad as it is to change the law to suit the fact that the Democrats would benefit, there is an additional legal problem in that they propose changing the law after the vacancy already has occurred!
That fact should be very valuable to anyone seeking to go to court to enjoin an appointment.
Interesting history, but I think a problem with the argument is that it took 2/3 of the Senators elected under the original provsion to amend the Constitution, didn't it? And at least according to Gordon Wood, one of Madison's primary objectives in shepherding the Constutional Convention was to curb the venality of the state assemblies. After all , it's the Illinois State Senate that was the spawning ground for the specimen currently occupying the Oval Office.
I dont think they will need that one Senator tp pass the Bill. I am sure one or two RINO Republicans will sell us out.
There is of course an easy way through this problem. I don’t have a problem with an interim appointment as long as an election follows rather quickly.
The way to de-politicize this is to allow the election to happen and then change the law to allow an interim appointment. This is how the law should have been written in 2004, but that’s politics here in MA.
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.