The law in the state which allows the governor to replace a member of congress is worded so that it is only effective if the congressman DIES.
There is no wording regarding INCAPACITATION.
So, the horse may be before the cart here...
(however, there is some federal precedent that may come into play to allow replacement when there is only incapacitation. This will probably be a huge court battle, between states rights and federal powers, and may be quickly jetted to the Supreme Court. Hence we could be on the brink of Gore v. Bush part duex.)
Neither replacement would have been voted by the people.
It is impossible to say how a new election would turn out: if the people were electing the person or the party or whatever else.
Just in the interests of respect, I believe if an elected official is unable to finish their term, someone who would have been agreeable to them should be appointed. But this is politics. It's all about the power. So of course that would never happen.
The law in the state which allows the governor to replace a member of congress is worded so that it is only effective if the congressman DIES.
There is no wording regarding INCAPACITATION.
So, the horse may be before the cart here...
(however, there is some federal precedent that may come into play to allow replacement when there is only incapacitation. This will probably be a huge court battle, between states rights and federal powers, and may be quickly jetted to the Supreme Court. Hence we could be on the brink of Gore v. Bush part duex.)
YEA!!!! That was so much fun!
Oh... GOODY!
And we could discuss it here, in the religion and politics forum.
Yo, Met... thanks for the sig! GO DUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am a republican and i voted no, but the reason it was set-up this way was b/c back then there were no political parties and it wouldn't have mattered. George Washington said that PP were horrible and could ruin American Government. I think he was right
Neither replacement would have been voted by the people. It is impossible to say how a new election would turn out: if the people were electing the person or the party or whatever else.
This is exactly right. Johnson is a moderate Democrat, you can't just plug in another generic Democrat and claim it represents the will of the people.
The governor of South Dakota was elected by the people to perform certain duties, one of which is replacing Senators that die under the laws of the state. The voters have not been disenfranchised.
This whole discussion reminds me of 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral, then suddenly everyone's jumping on the bandwagon about how we should change the laws. I'm not pointing fingers at Democrats here - there is no doubt if the parties were switched the GOP would be saying the same things.
Anyway I hope Sen. Johnson is OK and this is all a moot point.
deerayfan072 wrote:I am a republican and i voted no, but the reason it was set-up this way was b/c back then there were no political parties and it wouldn't have mattered. George Washington said that PP were horrible and could ruin American Government. I think he was right
Back when? Political parties haven't ALWAYS been with us, but there were political parties as early as 1789 (The Federalist Party) and 1792 (Democrat Party). For all intents and purposes America has always had political parties.
I think there should be temporary replacement and a new emergency vote in the next few months to let the voters be heard once again.
as for replacing a dem with a dem or rep with a rep is kinda silly IMO because were talking about people here, with personality not some strict party hard line person that fits the mold on paper, so while a gov may be forced to replace him via laws, who's to say there won't be a big unliked douche appointed just to protect a seat. it's ludicrist.
[/quote]
[size=14][b]Letters from the procupine, they'll stick straight through you.
So read one anytime you think you've made mistakes.[/b][/size]
deerayfan072 wrote:I am a republican and i voted no, but the reason it was set-up this way was b/c back then there were no political parties and it wouldn't have mattered. George Washington said that PP were horrible and could ruin American Government. I think he was right
Back when? Political parties haven't ALWAYS been with us, but there were political parties as early as 1789 (The Federalist Party) and 1792 (Democrat Party). For all intents and purposes America has always had political parties.
Battle of the political parties....I like the whigs
Cafe Home
Fantasy Baseball
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by knapplc » Thu Dec 14, 2006 12:11 pm 
[/quote]
