Posted on 09/09/2009 9:56:22 AM PDT by massmike
On Wednesday, Sept 9 at 1:00 pm at the State House there will be a public hearing on a Massachusetts bill that could change all of America.
Bill H656 [see text here] would give the Governor of Massachusetts the ability to quickly appoint an interim successor to Ted Kennedy to serve in the US Senate, until a replacement is elected. The election is scheduled for Jan. 19, 2010.
This would effectively reverse the law that many of these same politicians passed in 2004, when the Governor was a Republican instead of a Democrat.
(Excerpt) Read more at massresistance.org ...
when has a Constitution stopped a ‘rat?
Especially since January 20th 2009. Or since Nov 2000.
I think they see the US and State Constitutions as sets of outdated procedural suggestions, not guideposts.
It worked out really well for Illinois...
No.
Completely different thing.
“Ex Post Facto” changes the legal consequence of actions that occurred prior to the law.
This isn’t about Teddy being dead (he still is).
It’s about choosing or electing his successor.
Perfectly legal, but in extremely poor form.
Teddy himself fought for the change in this law.
“Honor” Teddy by leaving it as it is.
Look, so what if they break a few rules to get things done? They are doing it for us, protecting us from the evil insurance companies , LOL
IANAL, but someone posted that that is only for criminal not civil. I don't even know where to look to verify/refute that.
50 to 1 in favor.
Election will cost Massachusetts 7.2 million according to Worcester Telegram today. Every city and town will have to anti up for the Kennedy idiocy of his law change under Romney.
It seems to me - a non-lawyer - that any resident of MA eligible for the office of Governor should be able to get a restraining order against such an appointment, based on the current law mandating an ELECTION not being followed.
After all, Kennedy’s death in office triggered the full election process, which should now run to its conclusion without interference.
NOTE: If anyone out there can address the real legal issues here from an informed point of view, please do so.
I doubt that, as well.
fine.
I am sorry if I am not a lawyer, just an PE. However, I am not the only who thinks this.
The article makes specific mention of REMOVING Burris from the senate.
In that case, I would agree, because Burris would have already been appointed and sworn under a previous statute.
However, I don’t think changing a law before the fact (the appointment) could be considered “Ex Post Facto” because the law only considers actions occurring AFTER the law might be passed.
This doesn’t discount other legal troubles it might incur.
I agree. Now, unstead of looking to the courts to resolve this it would be nice if Mass voters developed some spine and voted a Republican to that slot and voted out of office everyone who played Kennedy puppet.
**Instead***
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.