Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Replacing Senators 11

Journal by pudge

John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for President, is currently the junior Senator of Massachusetts. There are two questions concerning this fact and his race for the Presidency: should he step down now, and how should he be replaced if he does step down (either now, or should he win the election in November)?

Complicating this matter is the fact of the Republican governor of the state: Mitt Romney (don't be surprised: MA has had a Republican governor [four different ones] since 1991, and also from 1965-1975). The U.S. Constitution says (Article I, Section 2, Clause 2):

if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

This was amended by the 27th Amendment:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

So is it the case, then, that the (in this case, heavily Democratic) legislature may, but does not have to, allow the governor to fill vacancies? I am never quite clear on the legal definition of "may," but I see no reason to mention the legislature at all if the Governor simply had that authority.

Regardless, it is quite clear that the Democrats are denying not only the people of their proper representation, but also of their will (as they chose the executive in question, knowing that he -- at the time -- had the power to fill vacancies). And you better believe that if the governor were a Democrat -- or if this comes up someday when the legislature and executive are once again both Democratic -- that they will change it right back to giving the governor that authority.

It's a horrible disservice to the people, and anti-democratic. I have no problem with setting up a special election that did not previously exist, but to deny representation in the meantime -- especially given that it is for purely political purposes -- is despicable.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Replacing Senators More

Replacing Senators

Comments Filter:
  • According to this copy of the Constitution [house.gov] and the amendments [house.gov], your citations should be Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2, and the 17th Amendment.

    You're probably right about the political aspect of it, but I don't think that the current governor ever had the power to appoint a senator (that changed in 1913), unless it was approved by the Massachusetts legislature. Kerry is not doing the job that he was elected for, but there is little reason to assume that a Republican would have any chance to succeed him
      • I don't recall previous candidates from the Senate (Mondale and Dole) being quite so absent...

      Dole resigned his Senate seat to run for President. Mondale resigned his Senate seat to run for Vice President and wasn't currently in the Senate when he ran for President, if I remember correctly.

    • According to this copy of the Constitution and the amendments, your citations should be Article 1, Section 3, Clause 2, and the 17th Amendment

      Heh, both are typos. Well, the second is, the first I had Section 2, but then changed it to Section 3, I distinctly remember. Thanks for the corrections.

      You're probably right about the political aspect of it, but I don't think that the current governor ever had the power to appoint a senator

      According to the Boston Globe today [boston.com], "The special election plan would
      • Thanks for the link. I didn't have the context. You're right about it being abhorrent political manipulation. I thought that it was interesting the they turned down Romney's offer to have his appointment approved by the President of the Massachusetts Senate and the speaker of their House. That he would offer that seems to imply that he would be willing to appoint a Democrat to the vacant seat. So what is really happening is that, should Kerry not resign before the election (Dole's example would be a go

        • So what is really happening is that, should Kerry not resign before the election (Dole's example would be a good one to emulate), he will be deprived of a Democrat in the Senate for the first few months of his administration

          It may be a bit more than that. If Kerry resigns and DOESN'T win the election, Mass has lost a senator with a lot seniority. This means losing a lot of influential committee and sub-committee seats.

          Mass would lose a chair (and influence) on:

          Committee on Foreign Relations (includin

          • Yeah, I didn't slam Kerry for not resigning. There's multiple sides to that issue. Dole was a little different; a lot more seniority etc., a lot more clout, but he was on the end of his career whether he won or not, and Kerry's not.
  • I am not paying much attention to all of this, even though I live within walking distance of Beacon Hill. However it seems that they are reaching a compromise that Romney gets to appoint someone who will serve until a special election. I think that Kerry should resign. Isn't Edwards not running for his own seat? He decided that when he was still running for President. I think that is the honorable thing to do.

    It will be interesting to see what Romney does in four years if he is still governor. It is

    • However it seems that they are reaching a compromise that Romney gets to appoint someone who will serve until a special election.

      The Senate rejected a possible compromise this week, and the House looks to follow suit. The only thing Romney seems able to do at this point is to veto the entire thing when it comes up before him.
      • Seems like he is holding all the cards. What was proposed struck me a generous given that he could just tell them to forget about it, and he could pick someone to serve for two years.

        Interesting tidbit from the Globe article:

        He said he was unconcerned about leaving the seat vacant while a special election is held.

        ''We already have a congressional delegation, and we'll always have at least one member in the United States Senate," he said. Joyce said that a Kerry White House would care for Massachusett

  • You MAY do this means: If you choose, this is something you could do.

    Must is directive. THIS is what you are freaken' gonna do!

    The whole may thing was at the heart of one of the 2000 election court cases. Now having stirred that pot, I'm gonna walk away all innocent-like...

    • You MAY do this means: If you choose, this is something you could do.

      That's not true. For example [thefreedictionary.com]:

      "Whenever a statute directs the doing of a thing for the sake of justice or the public good, the word may is the same as shall."

      "May" does not always imply discretion. The context means a lot, but in this case, I think the context implies the legislature does have discretion, as I noted previously.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.

Close