'Interim' senator who can't be elected

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from natural. Show natural's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : What a fraud. You're "ok" with a Repub for a Repub until of course it happens. THEN it would be an issue for you.
    Posted by dexter67[/QUOTE]

    There you go with your 'IF' logic.
    IF you had a rack, you would be Sarah Palin.

    I'm glad you agreed with the rest of the post BTW.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    Why should a Repub governor appoint another republican to an elected Democrat Senator's seat?
    ---------------------------

    Because it was the law and had been for 100 years!  As it is in 49 states

    Duh!

    You actually believe the power of the governor to appoint should depend on the party of the governor AND the party of the person being replaced???

    I hope you have a HUGE problem with Russ Feingold's bill to take the power governors to appoint away altogether, but i REALLY doubt it

    My question RE your planet of residence was spot on
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from natural. Show natural's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]Why should a Repub governor appoint another republican to an elected Democrat Senator's seat? --------------------------- Because it was the law and had been for 100 years!  As it is in 49 states Duh! You actually believe the power of the governor to appoint should depend on the party of the governor AND the party of the person being replaced??? I hope you have a HUGE problem with Russ Feingold's bill to take the power governors to appoint away altogether, but i REALLY doubt it My question RE your planet of residence was spot on
    Posted by GreginMedford[/QUOTE]

    Just because something's been there for 100 years, doesn't mean it cannot be challenged and changed. 49 states didn't do it. So what? MA is the first to change it, and rightfully so. Not the only thing MA has challenged. Why should a Republican gov appoint another Republican to fill an elected Democrat's Senator seat? That doesn't represent the state...and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not a Dem replacing another Dem.

    Get a grip...and yeah I certainly don't live on your planet.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from movingtangent. Show movingtangent's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : I wouldn't want to fast forward thru 15 months of my life. I get it thats its not much of a loss to you. While I work to get in the next interim Senator in MA, and hopefully rejoice soon - you'll still be here barking from the sidelines. Step by step
    Posted by natural[/QUOTE]

    Ohio isn't the sidelines, its out of bounds, in the parking lot, past the broken down bus.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE] Why does it matter what party holds the seat or held the seat? 
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    It is called POLITICS. After all, it is a political position.  What is the problem?  All that the republicans have to do is get 50% of the state house and they can get their own rules in.
    (I can't believe I am defending these nitwits in the state house, but your disbelief about senators appointments being politically driven is moe absurd).

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : What planet are you on?  The law was changed by democrats to prevent a republican governor from appointing a replacement.  The same democrats are now changing it again to allow a democrat governor to appoint a replacement, and they are using EXACTLY the same tactic that they claimed was UNCONSTITUTIONAL in when they changed it in 05. Hello!
    Posted by GreginMedford[/QUOTE]


    Greg,
    Enough with the "unconstitutional" bit. Read the constitution, it is not big reading.

    Article 1 of the constitution gives the legislature of each state the power to chose 2 senators. That was later superseded by the 17th amendment, to make the office elected. But when vacancies happen, it is back up to the legislature of each satte.

    "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, it is exactly like it reads. The legislature decides IF and WHETHER and HOW they make temporary appointments, as well as the rules for elections and whether we have elections for the remainder term.

    I cannot believe this "constitutional" argument is taking place.  it is simple ENGLISH reading. And the constitutional text regarding this is not even remotely complex.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : Your argument would hold water if it was a Republican senator seat. It isn't. The law that was created for this very purpose, is moot at this point. Keep swinging.
    Posted by natural[/QUOTE]

    No Natural,
    His argument would not make sense then either. The constitution and 17th amendment are very clear on this.  Basically, it is up to the legislature to direct how and if the vacancy is filled. Period. 
    It has nothing to do with state law either. US constitution supercede any law.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from dexter67. Show dexter67's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : There you go with your 'IF' logic. IF you had a rack, you would be Sarah Palin. I'm glad you agreed with the rest of the post BTW.
    Posted by natural[/QUOTE]

    There you go with your ASSumptions. Not bothering to comment on the rest of your drivel doesn't mean I agree with it. Here's your sign...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : It is called POLITICS . After all, it is a political position .  What is the problem?  All that the republicans have to do is get 50% of the state house and they can get their own rules in. (I can't believe I am defending these nitwits in the state house, but your disbelief about senators appointments being politically driven is moe absurd).
    Posted by Charles2008[/QUOTE]

    Re-read and look at the whole post, not just the cherry picked lines. I know it is all politics. My issue is they are wiping their a55 with the Constitution and people like you and the Dems in this state are applauding it.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : Just because something's been there for 100 years, doesn't mean it cannot be challenged and changed. 49 states didn't do it. So what? MA is the first to change it, and rightfully so. Not the only thing MA has challenged. Why should a Republican gov appoint another Republican to fill an elected Democrat's Senator seat? That doesn't represent the state...and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Not a Dem replacing another Dem. Get a grip...and yeah I certainly don't live on your planet.
    Posted by natural[/QUOTE]

    Amazing!

    they changed it in 05 because there was a republican gov, and now doing it again because its a dem!

    When they changed it in 05 they declared the option of an interim gov who can't then run was unconstitutional.

    Now, suddenly, its not.

    Not only are they determining the power of the executive based on party, but what is and is not constitutional based on party.

    You know this and are stuck
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : No Natural, His argument would not make sense then either. The constitution and 17th amendment are very clear on this.  Basically, it is up to the legislature to direct how and if the vacancy is filled. Period.  It has nothing to do with state law either. US constitution supercede any law.
    Posted by Charles2008[/QUOTE]

    The Mass Constitution supersedes the US constitution in this case. The state
    legislature has reign over this and they are required to abide the Constitution.

    Changing the law today after the death of a Senator can and should be challenged as ex post facto and thrown out by the Mass. Supreme Court.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from theIndependent1776. Show theIndependent1776's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-C-A-L .... This is how it's spelled.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeddyffromNH. Show TeddyffromNH's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-C-A-L .... This is how it's spelled.
    Posted by theIndependent1776[/QUOTE]

    It's all a means to an end for democrats in MA.  Hopefully enough people outside of 128 grow a pair and challenge the Beacon Hill establishment, oops, I meant cartel.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from natural. Show natural's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : It's all a means to an end for democrats in MA.  Hopefully enough people outside of 128 grow a pair and challenge the Beacon Hill establishment, oops, I meant cartel.
    Posted by TeddyffromNH[/QUOTE]

    Oh look its Teddy from NH.....the little neocon tool
    Sadly all you will be doing is watch from NH, while I vote for a new DEM Senator in MA.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from natural. Show natural's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : Amazing! they changed it in 05 because there was a republican gov, and now doing it again because its a dem! When they changed it in 05 they declared the option of an interim gov who can't then run was unconstitutional. Now, suddenly, its not. Not only are they determining the power of the executive based on party, but what is and is not constitutional based on party. You know this and are stuck
    Posted by GreginMedford[/QUOTE]

    My argument stays the same above. Its about representing the state in the Senate, as elected by the state.

    Like I said earlier Greg - If you think you have a great UNCONSTITUTIONAL case in your hands, nothing should stop you or brat from filing a lawsuit.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    My God how hard is this for ya.

    When the appointee decides to run and says trying to stop him is unconstitutional, HE WILL BE RIGHT, AND CAN RUN.

    This is exactly what these same democrats said in 05, AND THEY WERE RIGHT THEN!!!

    Do I need a bigger drill bit?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeddyffromNH. Show TeddyffromNH's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : Oh look its Teddy from NH.....the little neocon tool Sadly all you will be doing is watch from NH, while I vote for a new DEM Senator in MA.
    Posted by natural[/QUOTE]

    I live in MA you quivering a$ $ hole.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from natural. Show natural's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : I live in MA your quivering a$ $ hole.
    Posted by TeddyffromNH[/QUOTE]

    sure you are.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from natural. Show natural's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]My God how hard is this for ya. When the appointee decides to run and says trying to stop him is unconstitutional, HE WILL BE RIGHT, AND CAN RUN. This is exactly what these same democrats said in 05, AND THEY WERE RIGHT THEN!!! Do I need a bigger drill bit?
    Posted by GreginMedford[/QUOTE]

    Again read my post earlier. Why should a Republican appointee get a head-start in the special elections, on an elected Dems Senator seat?
    Your arguing a line here and there, not the whole picture.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : The Mass Constitution supersedes the US constitution in this case. The state legislature has reign over this and they are required to abide the Constitution. Changing the law today after the death of a Senator can and should be challenged as ex post facto and thrown out by the Mass. Supreme Court.
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]


    No Brat.  Mass Constitution NEVER supersede US consitution.  It may augment it, as long as it does not disagree.

    There is nothing in the law that remotly deals with death of senator.  It only refer to vacancy. There is now vacancy, therefore laws can be enacted to deal with it.  You may cry double standard and opportunism, but certainly nothing remotely unconstitutional or unlawful.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Charles2008. Show Charles2008's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]My God how hard is this for ya. When the appointee decides to run and says trying to stop him is unconstitutional, HE WILL BE RIGHT, AND CAN RUN. This is exactly what these same democrats said in 05, AND THEY WERE RIGHT THEN!!! Do I need a bigger drill bit?
    Posted by GreginMedford[/QUOTE]


    Sure.  You cannot stop the appointee from running If he wants to run.  And you cannot make laws that prevent an appointee from running (that would be unconstitutional).
    BUT, changing the law to appoint is lawful and constitutional (by the letter of 1st article adn 17th amendment).
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : No Brat.  Mass Constitution NEVER supersede US consitution.  It may augment it, as long as it does not disagree. There is nothing in the law that remotly deals with death of senator.  It only refer to vacancy. There is now vacancy, therefore laws can be enacted to deal with it.  You may cry double standard and opportunism, but certainly nothing remotely unconstitutional or unlawful.
    Posted by Charles2008[/QUOTE]

    Do you read what you cut and past? The 17th Amendment states in part...

    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."

    The legislature has ALREADY directed the executive to be UNABLE to fill the seat on an interim basis.
    The Massachusetts Constitution states you cannot make an ex post facto law. That means after the fact. Since the opening has happened already, the legislature CANNOT make a new law (i.e. ammend an existing or write new) to change the FACT that they already removed the executive powers to fill the seat. Therefore the Massachusetts Constitution trumps the US. It does in many other instances as well. Remember "any powers not explicetly granted the federal government are reserved for the states." See DOMA and Mass Gay marriage.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected :  BUT, changing the law to appoint is lawful and constitutional (by the letter of 1st article adn 17th amendment).
    Posted by Charles2008[/QUOTE]

    No it isn't! It would be an ex post facto law and is Un-Constitutional.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from TeddyffromNH. Show TeddyffromNH's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : No it isn't! It would be an ex post facto law and is Un-Constitutional.
    Posted by brat13[/QUOTE]

    Cant obama appoint a 100th czar to appoint our next senator?  Appointing people to do your bidding is nifty, they need not answer to anyone but chairman obama
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMedford. Show GreginMedford's posts

    Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected

    In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 'Interim' senator who can't be elected : Sure.  You cannot stop the appointee from running If he wants to run.  And you cannot make laws that prevent an appointee from running (that would be unconstitutional).
    Posted by Charles2008[/QUOTE]

    Yet THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING!!!!  HELLO!!!!!!! 

    The dems know only knew it was BS and unconstitutional 5 years ago, THEY CLAIMED IT!  Now its ok???  Okey dokey dude.  I missed the change to the constitution over the last 5 years.  Was it a double-secret probation amendment?

    And the reason they are doing it is BECAUSE they changed the law 5 years ago BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR WAS A REPUBLICAN, and now want to change it back BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR IS A DEMOCRAT.

    Where's clause that says, "the powers of the executive branch are dependent upon the party of the occupant"?

    Missed that one too
     

Share