Posted on 09/01/2009 8:40:01 AM PDT by SpeakToPower
How can it be appropriate to change the legal mechanism for filling a vacancy after that vacancy has occurred?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It would seem that some sort of Ex Post Facto interpretation would rule here. The ‘condition’ is triggered by the death.....the current law at time of ‘death’ should be used.....
Ex post facto would be an obvious cause for a court challenge. Even if the legislature is able to pass it, this would be a long, long process. Well beyond the time set for the special election.
Changing the rules after-the-fact never stopped the Democrats before....there are too many examples to believe they will not try it in Massachusetts.
I agree, lawsuits should be forthcoming should they change the law.
I believe if they change it the current opening would have to be “grandfathered” in and use the current law. JMHO.
Homosexual marriage became legal in MA because three judges thought it was a good idea and ordered the state legislature to make a law. They did.
But it’s a democrat seat, they can fill it any way they want. You’re not a racist are you?
(Yeah, it makes no sense, but it’s the standard democrat line.)
LEGAL?? You’re talking about politics in Mass!! What has legal to do with it?
This has been exactly my argument from the moment the Swimmer took his last breath. No one has been able to answer this apparently simple legal question.
They’ll most certainly change it to suit their interests.
People... this is BOSTON... Chicago East.
How can it be appropriate to change the legal mechanism for filling a vacancy after that vacancy has occurred?
Great Question.
I think they will do it regardless of what is legal, get their Kennedy spawn in there, and deal with the lawsuits and the illegality of it later. If I were a Republican in that state, I would go after a restraining order right now.
Exactly. Refraining from this requires having morality, ethics, honor, principles ... a sense of shame.
NONE of these characteristics are possessed by the Dems (particularly those in MA).
I thought that states had pretty much complete autonomy in selecting,in any way they chose,who would represent them in the US House and Senate.If I'm correct then it seems that the Federal courts couldn't become involved.And,as for the state courts,they're so full of worthless,amoral Marxists that any state challenge to whatever "law" was eventually enforced by Coupe Deval and his masters at DNC headquarters would be quickly and easily affirmed by every one.
Thus essentially rendering the matter a fait accomplis.
The head of the Mass GOP said that they will file suit if they try to appoint someone.
The constitutional prohibition on ex post fact laws is in regard to criminal law - in other words no one can be punished for a crime which was not defined in the law as a crime at the time the act was committed. This is not a criminal law issue. there is no punishment here - this is merely procedural and administrative in nature, so the prohibition on ex post fact laws does not come into play.
This is a very ironic state to which this state has come from the first opening shots of the Revolutionary War.....their forefathers,mothers, etc. must be spinning in their graves. Hey, maybe they can harness all of that rotational motion as a renewable energy source!!!!
"But his brothers were murdered! Camelot. Something. The poor. I don't know. It's his right to say who should decide should get his seat. His brothers were murdered! The poor!"
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.