• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I do not agree with your interpretation of that line. Why would you use that when it has already been contested, do you not have something else to point to?
 
Jaskalas said:
I do not agree with your interpretation of that line. Why would you use that when it has already been contested, do you not have something else to point to?
Click to expand...
Yea, the President of the United States who completely agrees with what I said!!!!!!!

GO back to the OP and click the link and read the damn thing and take your head out of the sand.

The Vice President of the United States, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the complete Senate ALL agreed with what I am saying.

I didn't make this up to piss you off. I read what the VP and Senate did in 1937 and created this post because of it.

This thread isn't based on a hunch or some right wing talking point. It is based on historical FACT!!!!

Here are quotes taken right from the Senate in 1937/38
“in view of [Seventeenth Amendment’s] purpose of providing for representation in the Senate by persons elected by popular vote both for full terms and for unexpired terms it seems reasonable to assume that no temporary appointment was to be authorized except for the intervening period between the creation of a vacancy and the day when the people by their votes actually elect a successor, or, in other words, until they elect a person to fill the vacancy.”

And here is a quote from a report prepared for congress in 2003
"Appointment of Interim Senators. Prevailing practice is for state governors to
fill Senate vacancies by appointment, with the appointee serving until a special election
has been held, at which time the appointment expires immediately. "
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Vacancies.pdf
Note that link is from the Senate.gov site
 
How does this affect lame duck Senators?

I.e., in a normal election there is 3 months between the election and the new guy being sworn in.
 
Carmen813 said:
How does this affect lame duck Senators?

I.e., in a normal election there is 3 months between the election and the new guy being sworn in.
Click to expand...
The Constitution states that Senators serve 6 year terms which is why we have lame duck Senators. Six years from being sworn in until leaving office.

This rule only applies to temporary appointments.
 
ProfJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. How can it be constitutional to leave a state without a sitting Senator? To me it only makes sense that the appointed Senator would act as Senator intil his replacment is sworn in. Any other interpretation is nothing but political hackery.
 
nobodyknows said:
Maybe, maybe not. How can it be constitutional to leave a state without a sitting Senator? To me it only makes sense that the appointed Senator would act as Senator intil his replacment is sworn in. Any other interpretation is nothing but political hackery.
Click to expand...
You are a lost cause.

I quoted a file from the Senate itself which states that temporary appointments are nul and void " immediately" after an election.

When this rule was put in place the people who made the rule said it was not right, but it was the law based on how the Constitution is written. The only to change this rule would be to change the Constitution.
 
With a win by +5 points I think it will be hard for the Democrats to pull any shenanigans like they probably would have if the race was close.
 
ProfJohn said:
You are a lost cause.

I quoted a file from the Senate itself which states that temporary appointments are nul and void " immediately" after an election.

When this rule was put in place the people who made the rule said it was not right, but it was the law based on how the Constitution is written. The only to change this rule would be to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

If you want to see a lost cause look in the mirror. We all know what a kool-aid drinker you are. Hell you beg to be a kool-aid server and think you're doing something important.

Sorry, but the way I read it the acting senator should get to vote until he is replaced, not by an election but by a duly elected AND sworn in replacment.
 
nobodyknows said:
If you want to see a lost cause look in the mirror. We all know what a kool-aid drinker you are. Hell you beg to be a kool-aid server and think you're doing something important.

Sorry, but the way I read it the acting senator should get to vote until he is replaced, not by an election but by a duly elected AND sworn in replacment.
Click to expand...

Where does the constitution recognize state election bureaucracies?

Brown has achieve all of the qualifications as outlined by the Constitution.
 
I personally think it will be hillarious if the Democrats at either the State or Federal level try anything that the people will see as underhanded. The absolute ass kicking they would get would be almost worth it. I would guess that the outrage would most likely border on a violent uprising.
 
Patranus said:
Where does the constitution recognize state election bureaucracies?

Brown has achieve all of the qualifications as outlined by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I posted the 17th amendment earlier.

“ 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.”

To me that says until the vacancy is filled. It can't be filled until the senator elect is sworn in.
 
nobodyknows said:
I posted the 17th amendment earlier.

“ 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.”

To me that says until the vacancy is filled. It can't be filled until the senator elect is sworn in.
Click to expand...
You are such an idiot!!!

I have already pointed out multiple times that the OFFICIAL RULES OF THE SENATE state that the temporary appointment of a Senator ends on election day.

As of now the people of Mass have filled the vacancy by election.
 
nobodyknows said:
If you want to see a lost cause look in the mirror. We all know what a kool-aid drinker you are. Hell you beg to be a kool-aid server and think you're doing something important.

Sorry, but the way I read it the acting senator should get to vote until he is replaced, not by an election but by a duly elected AND sworn in replacment.
Click to expand...
The way you read it doesn't matter. The Senate long ago had a situation almost exactly the same as the one today and determined that the temporary appointment ends on election day.

What YOU think is completely irrelevant.
 
ProfJohn said:
You are such an idiot!!!

I have already pointed out multiple times that the OFFICIAL RULES OF THE SENATE state that the temporary appointment of a Senator ends on election day.

As of now the people of Mass have filled the vacancy by election.
Click to expand...

If the vacancy is filled then who is voting for the people of Mass?


DUUHHHHH!!! Your the fucking idiot. I don't give a shit what the precedent says dumb ass. precedent doesn't mena shit to me, unlike most of you ass kissing ,kool-aid drinking, brown nosing fukeheads like you I make up my own mind on what is right. Capisce?
 
Well you made up your mind to be wrong, suit yourself.

BTW no one is voting for the people of Mass which is not much different than much of last year when Kennedy was off fighting cancer instead of sitting in Washington.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top