Skip to comments.Paul Kirk allowed to vote
Posted on 01/25/2010 4:38:59 PM PST by eh77c
I am presuming the votes were essentially meaningless? I mean, they certainly aren't Constitutional, but did this guy's votes even matter?
What bills did he vote on and which way did he vote? Did he talk to Brown before he voted?
Shocked, I tell you, shocked I am.
Republicans are progressives to, just not as fast as Democrats.
The 17th amendment passed Congress when the Democrats had a majority in the House and the Republicans a majority in the Senate; it was ratified while Woodrow Wilson was President.
I’m not shocked, even DEAD Democrats can vote, let alone ones not even legally in office anymore.
Republicans allowing him to vote at all sets precedent.
But dont expect the Republicans to work up enough courage to protest.
We need a strong third party bad. The other two just are not cutting it.
Can he do that?...The other night on FOX they said he had voted for the last time during the day Tuesday. That his vote would no longer count.
Apparently the GOP hasn’t objected or not that I’ve seen/heard. He’s voted three times so far as best I can tell. Two confirmation votes and one on an amendment to a House resolution.
Click the link in the thread and you’ll go to the senate vote page for this session.
No it isn't. All that's mentioned in the 17th Amendment is that the "State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies". Election law has well established that "elections" don't mean the singular day of voting, but the voting process in its entirety, to include the certification.
Furthermore, the Judiciary has traditionally given tremendous latitude to the Legislative branch with respect to when they seat the Representatives-Elect or Senators-Elect in these special elections, to include allowing either body to wait until the state certifies the election. Essentially, while the Senate could seat Brown now, no Judge is going to hear any case until such a time as the State of MA certifies the election results.
Any vote that Kirk takes up until the time that the Senate votes to accept Brown, will be legally binding.
I heard last night on a replay of Greta, during her interview with Scott’s attorney friend from the time they were law school classmates, that Scott will not be formally seated until February 11, BECAUSE the senate isn’t cooperating and neither are the clerks in MA regarding the certifications of the various election results in the different cities/precincts.
No it doesn't. There is already AMPLE precedent in such matters. See my post directly above.
The report I saw said it was Massachusetts law that comes into play. The law states along the lines of: Once a new Senator is elected and qualified in the special election, the appointed Senator's term is ended.
Since a Senator was elected and he is qualified, Kirk's term should have ended at the closing of the polls on election night.
Dems, being Dems they will use anything to push their agenda, but the law seemed pretty clear, Kirk should be out.
What you said is completely incorrect. Check this out:
You don’t think the laws of a mere-—state-—would concern the gods of the Senate, do you?
State law doesn't trump federal law, nor Senate rules for that matter. In this instance, the law is clear - it is COMPLETELY left to the Senate who they seat, and when they seat them.
The people have voted. Kirk is no longer senator.
Reid may stall and not let Brown vote--Article I, Sec. 5 says that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..." Reid and the Democratic majority in the Senate could refuse to seat Brown, period, although to put anyone else in there they'd have to have collusion from Massachusetts government officials, and be willing to ignore the anger of the American people. They've already shown they have contempt for public opinion, but some of those up for re-election may shy away from hardball tactics.
No, it's not. The "election" isn't over because the votes haven't been counted - the counties had 10 days to continue to receive and count absentee ballots.
Moreover, one needs look no further than the Robert Krueger v. Kay Bailey Hutchison special election to take Lloyd Bentsen's seat in 1993. That election was "held" on June 5, 1993, but Senate records clearly indicate that Kreuger - who was the Dem appointee temporarily holding the seat - stayed in officce until nine days later on June 14. In fact, Kreuger voted on June 10, without objections.
I've read some of the stories based on the CRS report. They're unconvincing because they all allude to language in the report that says the interim office holder's term expires immediately upon the election being held. It's difficult, and without judicial precedent, to say you've held an election, and you haven't counted all the votes.
Even with the precedent found in Powell v. McCormack case, no court would hear this until such a time that the election process was completed.
Some of the people have voted. Until such a time that all the votes are counted, the election is ongoing. By statute as prescribed by MA law, the counties have 10 days to receive absentee ballots, and to count them.
"Reid may stall and not let Brown vote--Article I, Sec. 5 says that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...""
Reid could only stall up to the time that the election is certified. Then, because of a Supreme Court decision called Powell v. McCormack (sp?), this challenges are justiciable, and Brown would prevail in an expedited ruling, forcing Reid to seat Brown, and probably ending in a Constitutional crisis. The only cases brought based on the Powell ruling have been rendered moot because the Legislature always blinks before the case can be heard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.