Mass. House Approves Bill Allowing Gov. To Appoint Kennedy Replacement I hate partisan politics, this is complete crap.
I think this is very interesting because most governors already have the authority to appoint whomever they like until a new election can be held. I was unaware that Massachusetts did not allow their executive to make that call.
I absolutely hate the idea of appointing elected officials, defeats the entire purpose. Had I known it already happened more frequently I would have been outraged already.
What you have to remember is that under Article I, sec. 3 of the United States Constitution established that the individual state legislatures appointed Senators to serve in the US Senate. This provision was added because the smaller states argued that if there was just one house, the House of Representatives, then the larger states, by virtue of their population, could control the smaller states. The fear was that the states with larger populations might have laws passed that harmed trade and political influence of the smaller states. The compromise reached was the election of Senators. Each state, no matter how large or small, would have two Senators to represent it. That way each state is equal in power, at least in the Senate. Most people have forgotten that Congress is suppose to represent two distinct entities. The House was for the people as a whole. This is why its membership is determined by population and they are elected to only two year terms. The Senate was to be appointed by the legislatures of the states; each Senator was appointed instead of elected like they are now. This gave the states a voice in government. Remember, the original and true doctrine is that each and every state was a sovereign nation in a federation with others. The united States (the original spelling, lowercase 'u') federal government was established to do two things. It was to serve as a mediator between all of the states and foreign powers for trade as well as facilitate trade among the states by establishing uniform trade rules. The second function of the federal government was to organize for self-defense in case of war. The theory was that if New York was invaded by England then, because of the defense clause of the Constitution, all other states were obligated to come to New York's aid to repelling the invaders. Congress had only 17 powers delegated to it by the states under Article 1, sec. 8. It wasn't until April of 1913 that Article 1, sec. 3 was amended by the 17th amendment to provide for the election of Senators. The claim was that over the years the system didn't work because many states had problems appointing new Senators because of partisanship. But that really was the point. The framers didn't want a populist government because populist governments are subject to the fads of the people instead of focusing on securing liberty. The House was there to entertain the fads of the people, whereas the Senate was to serve as a more distinguished deliberative body which would focus more on the Constitution and liberty than fads and populism. While the original amendment was first passed in the Senate in 1911 and the House in 1912 I have a feeling that the timing was in conjunction with other factors. Remember this was the same time period that gave us the Federal Reserve and the federal income tax. The year 1913 is the year that Constitutional government died and an activist government was born. The election of Senators really does fly in the face of Constitutional government. The appointment of Senators by the states was to serve as yet another check on the power of the federal government. Remember always that the united States originally was not a homogeneous body like it is today. Each state was sovereign and joined a federation for certain benefits that it brought. This is why several states over the years have either threatened to secede or actually attempted it. By electing Senators, instead of appointing them as was originally wanted, we have undermined the sovereignty and authority of the states. This is one of the reasons why we are in the situation we are in now. The states have no power. They have been brought under the heel of a strong federal government. No longer is this the united States, but it is now the United States of America. That one letter 'u' really does sum it all up. Today we are a single body under the control of a strong central government. This is completely at odds with what the framers of the Constitution wanted. They wanted a central authority for certain things but the states were to retain their sovereignty. It's all part of destroying America I guess.
Oh, I just wanted to add also that the President was never suppose to be elected by popular vote either. The President was to be elected by the legislatures of the several states. Remember, the federal government was ONLY suppose to deal with the states themselves. The average person was to have little dealings with the federal government. Back in the day most people never really gave the federal government that much thought. It was the forum of the states, not of the people. The House was to represent the people before the united States federal government. All of our interactions with government where to be at the state and local level only.
I would piss my pants if Patrick appointed Dr. Atul Gawande. Think Progress » Gov. Deval Patrick Should Nominate Dr. Atul Gawande As Interim U.S. Senator
people are entitled to two senators and this bill simply ensures that the views of the american people are represented
Then why did they elect a republican when they were given the chance to actually vote on it? Their view must not have been represented very well, hence the precious Kennedy seat along with Obama's supermajority being stolen away by that racist Tea Party.
*****, Scott brown doesn't have anything to do with this. The law is just because the people are entitled to have two senators. Appointment is the fastest way to ensure that the people have two senators. If Mitt Romney was still the govener he would of appointed a republican, it doesn't make a difference.
No, he wouldn't have. The democrats amended state law so they could make this appointment to help push their agenda on the Federal level. Before Kennedy made his deathbed request this was illegal under Mass. law. Also, if Romney were Governor he wouldn't have had enough votes to amend the law anyway seeing as they have a democrat controlled legislature. This had nothing to do with making sure the people were represented, and everything to do with playing politics. How does making an interim appointment that is unapproved by the constituency ensure that their views are represented???
can you not read? the constitution says TWO people need to represent the people of a state. After Ted died only ONE person was there. so they needed a law to allow TWO people to be senator. ONE. TWO. ONE. TWO. ONE. TWO. such a simple concept
