Posted on 01/06/2007 9:03:57 PM PST by FairOpinion
Johnson spent his 60th birthday last week in the intensive-care unit of George Washington University Hospital, where he has been in critical condition since emergency brain surgery Dec. 13.
He has not spoken since the surgery, said a spokeswoman, and he remains on a ventilator at night.
Johnson is up for re-election in two years, but until then no authority can remove him from office.
Should Johnson die, however, all eyes would be on Gov. Michael Rounds of South Dakota. He is a Republican, and would be under pressure to name a Republican to the Senate seat - thus giving control back to Republicans.
(Excerpt) Read more at capecodonline.com ...
Senate Standing Rule VI: "A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn." As long as 51 senators are present then a quorum is present. So long as there is a quorum then the majority is 50 percent of those present plus one.
I couldn't agree more. Politics aside he needs to be with his family. I pray that he recovers quickly.
Often Senators "pair" for voting. If Sen. X knows that he will not be present to cast his 'aye' vote, he will "pair" with another Senator who will not be there to cast his 'nay' vote so as not to affect the outcome of the vote.
It wouldn't surprise me if a lot of pairing goes on until Johnson's condition is determined once and for all. Republicans being the gentlemen they are will likely readily pair if a fellow Dem can't be found to balance Johnson's non-vote.
Johnson's office and Reid can say whatever they want, I don't imagine Sen. Johnson will ever be voting in the Senate again. Reid is trying to delay the inevitable, imo.
South Dakota Senator Karl Mundt suffered a stroke on 11/23/69 and maintained his seat until January 3, 1973 without ever setting foot in the Senate chamber. His wife and staff handled his legislative affairs and he was stripped of committee assignments but Senator Mundt never resigned nor was he replaced.
The one thing is that if he can not vote to caucus with the Democrats then it presents a particular problem that has yet to be resolved.
It's not necessary. South Dakota is entitled to its equal suffrage in the Senate. Any move to block a replacement from being appointed is a violation of Article V of the US Constitution.
But the state would have been within its rights to seek to replace him. They just didn't exercise those rights.
OK, I'll play along with you if you will answer the questions I've been asking. First, how long do you give him? Johnson was stricken on December 13th. Was the seat vacant on December 14th? Do you wait a week or a month? Second, who decides? What if one doctor says there is a good chance he can recover enough to resume his duties in a few months? Is that good enough to say that the seat isn't vacant? Do you need two doctors? Three? Unanimous decision? Majority vote? Third, what if you declare the seat vacant and in six months he's recovered enough to resume duties? You've stripped him of his elected office. What recourse does he have? You're so eager to get a replacement in there how about establishing some standards for the next time.
If you read Article V, it is the state that decides. What about, "that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate," do you not understand? If the state complains that it is not getting an equal vote to all the other states, I think that would be sufficient to determine that a state does not consent to the situation.
The key phrase in the Constitution is "without its Consent"... You have turned that into something which it is not: a requirement that a State always have two Senators present in the US Senate. Before the ratification of the 17th Amendment there were times where a particular State would only have one Senator due to the inability of the typically bicameral State Legislature to agree on a selection for the US Senate. The Federal Constitution could no more be used to force the State Legislatures of the day to appoint a US Senator than could that same phrase be used today to force a State to replace a medically incapacitated sitting Senator.
If the State Legislature of South Dakota had in place a law to deal with this situation BEFORE Senator Johnson fell ill - then he could be replaced. But for now he stays until death or resignation. I do wonder how he would resign if he cannot communicate or sign his name to a document. I wonder if a general power-of-attorney would cover this case...
dvwjr
Breezed right by questions one and three, I see. No surprise there. And you're still clinging to that weird interpretation of Article V. So are you saying that if Johnson was a congressman he could remain in a coma, and in office, regardless because Article V only addresses senators?
Aricle V says, "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
The purpose of that clause is to prevent any combination of states from ratifying an amendment reducing the number of senators a state may have. Your interpretation is plainly false, though I give you high marks for creativity.
"The one thing is that if he can not vote to caucus with the Democrats then it presents a particular problem that has yet to be resolved."
What problem is that? The Dems have 50 votes in their caucus (including Lieberman and Sanders) at the current time to 49 for the Republicans.
The South Dakota legislature could still pass legislation that would affect the time period after passage. If Senator Johnson still is incapacitated after passage of such legislation, the governor could appoint either a permanent or temporary replacement.
Obviously, those states made the choice to not exercise their right to have an equal vote in the Senate.
The Dhimmis have 50 votes without Johnson (including 2 indepedents) -- not 51. The Republicans have 49. So, it's 50 to 45. If Lieberman were to suddenly not caucus with the Dhimmis and abstained in voting on the control of the Senate, it would tip to the GOP, I think.
Chairman of a committee. Good grief. The Dhimmis are more delusional than I thought.
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.