After today's election interim Senator Kirk should not be allowed to vote anymore

[ProfJohn]

Found this last night.

Based on Senate prescient established 70 years ago the term of Paul Kirk should come to an end today after the Mass election is over, regardless of when a winner is officially determined and placed into office.

The 17th amendment says "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."

As of today the people have filled the vacancy by election and thus the temporary appointment has come to an end.

There are multiple sites that detail this fact. Here is the one where I first read it:
http://www.d1040331.dotsterhost.com...7-Can-Senator-Kirk-Vote-after-January-19.html

Just a small quote from the site

In addition to the text and purpose of the Seventeenth Amendment, the analysis relied on various Senate precedents, including an October 15, 1918 ruling by Vice President Marshall, who found that the phraseology of the amendment was “radically different” than that of various state laws that permitted appointees to serve until their successors were “elected and qualified.” Marshall concluded that regardless of the fact that Senators-elect must “run the gamit of executive, administrative, judicial and senatorial investigation before they are entitled to qualify and take their seats as Members of the United States Senate,” the terms of their appointed predecessors nonetheless expire on the day of election. While the Vice President noted that “[e]quitably, it would seem that the present incumbents ought to be permitted to hold until their successors elected on the 5th of November have been sworn in as Senators, [] such . . . is not the law.”

The Senate subcommittee and committee concluded, based on its hearing and review, that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” 1939 Congressional Record, p. 998. There was evidently no controversy among either the subcommittee or full committee regarding this legal conclusion, and the committee then presented a resolution to the Senate for adoption, expressing the view that Berry’s term of service expired on November 8, 1938, the date of the special election. As Senator Connally, a member of the subcommittee, explained to the Senate, the fact that the Tennessee statute purported to extend Berry’s term until the qualification of his successor was of no force because the statute was “plainly in conflict with the provisions of the seventeenth amendment.” Accordingly, the Senate adopted the proposed resolution without dissent. 1939 Congressional Record, p. 1058.

So after today Paul Kirk and the Democrats 60 vote super majority is toast, unless Coakley wins of course.

 

[nick1985]

If Brown wins I will make sure to tune in to MSNBC to see what Maddow and Olbermann say. lol

 

[nobodyknows]

there are multiple sites that detail this fact.

lmao!!

 

[ProgressiveAthe]

Brown must not win, if he does then we must hope for him to drop dead before he can vote.

Also so it is clear, I am not advocating violence.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Brown must not win, if he does then we must hope for him to drop dead before he can vote.

Lol...the compasionate Left speaks.

 

[Budmantom]

Brown must not win, if he does then we must hope for him to drop dead before he can vote.

Also so it is clear, I am not advocating violence.

Just hope and change?

 

[ProfJohn]

lmao!!

Here you go:
http://townhall.com/blog/g/50a326a1-e105-4d8e-b9b2-eac7b19adc6f
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...ass-dem-senator-kirk-cant-vote-after-tuesday/
http://dailypaul.com/node/121870
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/barnes-massachusetts-senatorial-race-and-obamacare
http://www.washingtontimes.com/webl...e-for-health-care-argues-gop/?feat=home_blogs
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/18/can-acting-sen-paul-kirk-vote
http://www.d1040331.dotsterhost.com...7-Can-Senator-Kirk-Vote-after-January-19.html

A bunch of right wing source for sure, but it is out there in many places.

The only thing you really need to know is what I quoted in my OP about Senate precedent. The Senate voted unanimously in 1939 that a temporary appointment ends on election day. I don't think the Dems would mess with such a precedent.

 

[Jaskalas]

"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 vacancy is not filled until swearing in.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Found this last night.

Based on Senate prescient established 70 years ago the term of Paul Kirk should come to an end today after the Mass election is over, regardless of when a winner is officially determined and placed into office.

The 17th amendment says "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."

As of today the people have filled the vacancy by election and thus the temporary appointment has come to an end.

There are multiple sites that detail this fact. Here is the one where I first read it:
http://www.d1040331.dotsterhost.com...7-Can-Senator-Kirk-Vote-after-January-19.html

Just a small quote from the site

So after today Paul Kirk and the Democrats 60 vote super majority is toast, unless Coakley wins of course.

JEEEEEEZZZZZZ! More SOP.

 

[nick1985]

Brown must not win, if he does then we must hope for him to drop dead before he can vote.

Also so it is clear, I am not advocating violence.

Hope and change

 

[MotF Bane]

The vacancy is not filled until swearing in.

Except that per Senate precedent, it is.

 

[nick1985]

Except that per Senate precedent, it is.

owned

 

[rudder]

The vacancy is not filled until swearing in.

Which Sen. Kerry has stated that this is a process that can take 10-12 days after the election... and that this is the way it has always been done. Well, except for when Ted Kennedy won the special election in 1962... he was sworn in within 2 days.

The only hope the dems have now is if the election is a close one... then they can pull a franken.

 

[ProfJohn]

The vacancy is not filled until swearing in.

Then perhaps you should have told that to the Senators who unanimously determined that the vacancy was in fact filled on election day.

The precedence on this is completely clear and without one bit of doubt. If Paul Kirk tried to vote after today someone can call a point of order and challenge his right to vote and that challenge should be upheld.

Perhaps you should click on the link in the OP to learn more.

Furthermore the state law of Mass says that temp appointment may be made until someone is elected and qualified, after today someone will have been elected and both of them are already qualified.

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW no one is stating that Brown can show up tomorrow and vote, we are just pointing out the FACT that after today Paul Kirk is no longer a US Senator and can not vote as a Senator and will no be paid as a Senator.

 

[nobodyknows]

Except that per Senate precedent, it is.

DId you read the 17th amendment?

“ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

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.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”

Where does it say anything about the appointed senator can't vote after the election? I don't see anything in regards to that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[nobodyknows]

The vacancy is not filled until swearing in.

Exactly and since it sems the vice president has some say in this then guess what?? LOL!

 

[nick1985]

DId you read the 17th amendment?



Where does it say anything about the appointed senator can't vote after the election? I don't see anything in regards to that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Do you know what a precedent is?

 

[nobodyknows]

Do you know what a precedent is?

A previous interpretation that can be reversed easily, unlike an amendment to the United States Constitution

 

[StageLeft]

Interesting, I'd like to see what other sources would have to say on it.

Something I have an opinion on is governor crapperson who is governor of NY only because Spitzer bailed; he was never elected (craperson). IMO once the next election is solved and he doesn't win it he should immediately leave office, not to finish term or anything. Kick him to the curb, the intent being to minimize the amount of time people are in an electable office who were not actually elected. Similar to if a president dies and VP takes over there should be a short-track to next election.

 

[nick1985]

Something that can be reversed easily

Keep grasping

 

[MotF Bane]

DId you read the 17th amendment?



Where does it say anything about the appointed senator can't vote after the election? I don't see anything in regards to that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Pre... ce... dent...

 

[werepossum]

Here you go:
http://townhall.com/blog/g/50a326a1-e105-4d8e-b9b2-eac7b19adc6f
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.co...ass-dem-senator-kirk-cant-vote-after-tuesday/
http://dailypaul.com/node/121870
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/barnes-massachusetts-senatorial-race-and-obamacare
http://www.washingtontimes.com/webl...e-for-health-care-argues-gop/?feat=home_blogs
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/18/can-acting-sen-paul-kirk-vote
http://www.d1040331.dotsterhost.com...7-Can-Senator-Kirk-Vote-after-January-19.html

A bunch of right wing source for sure, but it is out there in many places.

The only thing you really need to know is what I quoted in my OP about Senate precedent. The Senate voted unanimously in 1939 that a temporary appointment ends on election day. I don't think the Dems would mess with such a precedent.

Just to be clear, these are the same Democrats that changed Massachusetts law to prevent a Republican governor from appointing an interim senator, then changed the law back to allow a Democrat governor to appoint an interim senator?

Yeah, be sure and let me know how that works out for you. If Brown wins, I expect the Democrats to pull out every stop to prevent him from taking office.

 

[ProfJohn]

DId you read the 17th amendment?

“ The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

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.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.”

Where does it say anything about the appointed senator can't vote after the election? I don't see anything in regards to that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Re-read the bolded part.

It says "make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election" as of today the vacancy has been filled by election and this the temporary appointment is nul and void.

Remember that the Senate already looked at this issue and unanimously agreed with what I am saying.

 

[ProfJohn]

Just to be clear, these are the same Democrats that changed Massachusetts law to prevent a Republican governor from appointing an interim senator, then changed the law back to allow a Democrat governor to appoint an interim senator?

Yeah, be sure and let me know how that works out for you. If Brown wins, I expect the Democrats to pull out every stop to prevent him from taking office.

You are talking about state Democrats vs national Democrats in the Senate.

I have a little more faith that the Senators in Washington will be at least a little careful when dealing with this situation.

Allowing Kirk to vote after a Brown victory would be the equivalent of spitting in the face of the American people and I don't think they would do that.

Oh.... and the state Dems of Mass didn't completely change the law regarding Senators in Mass, they just gave the gov a chance to appoint an interim Senator which in the long run is not a bad thing for the people of Mass.