Comments on: The Reid/Durbin Fabrication On Burris http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:36:08 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126647 bmaz Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:33:03 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126647 <p>Um, yeah, I indeed do understand legal construction; and, since you are such a whiz bang, perhaps you ought to take it upon yourself to explain your superior knowledge to all the courts, over all the years, that appear to support the reading promulgated here instead of yours. Best of luck with that.</p> Um, yeah, I indeed do understand legal construction; and, since you are such a whiz bang, perhaps you ought to take it upon yourself to explain your superior knowledge to all the courts, over all the years, that appear to support the reading promulgated here instead of yours. Best of luck with that.

]]> By: brantl http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126633 brantl Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:34:44 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126633 <p>Provisio aren’t to be allowed to overturn the items that they are attached to. This is a poor legal argument and a misinterpretation of the 17th Amendment. Whether it’s been judged legal or not, it is a misinterpretation of the 17th amendment. And it says ‘temporarily’ and that ‘the governor shall file a writ of special election’ not may. Do you know the difference in meaning between shall and may? Actions that you shall take aren’t optional, actions that you may take aren’t.</p> Provisio aren’t to be allowed to overturn the items that they are attached to. This is a poor legal argument and a misinterpretation of the 17th Amendment. Whether it’s been judged legal or not, it is a misinterpretation of the 17th amendment. And it says ‘temporarily’ and that ‘the governor shall file a writ of special election’ not may. Do you know the difference in meaning between shall and may? Actions that you shall take aren’t optional, actions that you may take aren’t.

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126500 bmaz Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:35:52 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126500 <p>Actually, I am not wrong. The modifier “provided” makes the exception that states may determine the timing of any election set. As Dakine points out, the practice in states such as Illinois and New York that have so legislated is to set the special election for Senate seats as the next statewide election, although they are free to set sooner or otherwise. This is entirely consistent with the express wording of the 17th Amendment.</p> Actually, I am not wrong. The modifier “provided” makes the exception that states may determine the timing of any election set. As Dakine points out, the practice in states such as Illinois and New York that have so legislated is to set the special election for Senate seats as the next statewide election, although they are free to set sooner or otherwise. This is entirely consistent with the express wording of the 17th Amendment.

]]> By: dakine01 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126496 dakine01 Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:07:26 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126496 <p>And special elections will be held in ‘10 for the remainder of the NY senate seat term as well as the Delaware seat.</p> <p>Both Colorado and Illinois seats would be up in ‘10 anyway. </p> <p>The “tradition” if you will has been to allow the various governors to appoint for up to two years until the next scheduled election. If there are years remaining on the seat after that, then it is a “special” election, otherwise, it is a regular election. Since the precedent has been set over the years with out contesting, I doubt if you’ll get it changed.</p> And special elections will be held in ‘10 for the remainder of the NY senate seat term as well as the Delaware seat.

Both Colorado and Illinois seats would be up in ‘10 anyway.

The “tradition” if you will has been to allow the various governors to appoint for up to two years until the next scheduled election. If there are years remaining on the seat after that, then it is a “special” election, otherwise, it is a regular election. Since the precedent has been set over the years with out contesting, I doubt if you’ll get it changed.

]]> By: brantl http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126492 brantl Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:59:54 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126492 <p>All governors that are appointing term replacements are going against both the spirit and obvious intent of the 17th amendment.</p> All governors that are appointing term replacements are going against both the spirit and obvious intent of the 17th amendment.

]]> By: brantl http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126491 brantl Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:58:11 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126491 <p>No, that part that says that <em>they shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies</em> is the prime part they are also allowed to appoint says temporary appointments. Shall means they have to do that. The proviso that they can temporarily appoint someone to the vacancy is <em>only unitl the people fill the vacancy as the legislature <strong>may</strong> direct</em>. The special election is REQUIRED. The appointment of a temporary replacement is OPTIONAL, but the special election is still REQUIRED, as the Constitution of the United States is worded. You are wrong.</p> No, that part that says that they shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies is the prime part they are also allowed to appoint says temporary appointments. Shall means they have to do that. The proviso that they can temporarily appoint someone to the vacancy is only unitl the people fill the vacancy as the legislature may direct. The special election is REQUIRED. The appointment of a temporary replacement is OPTIONAL, but the special election is still REQUIRED, as the Constitution of the United States is worded. You are wrong.

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126466 bmaz Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:30:33 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126466 <p>And, actually of course, that does not contradict T-Bear’s comment in the least. The operative language of the 17th Amendment is:</p> <blockquote><p>When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each 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. </p></blockquote> <p>Illinois law has specified the procedure to be followed in Illinois and is in complete satisfaction with the 17th Amendment.</p> <p>So there is no Illinois law here that is superseded, or as you put it “overruled”, it is all in compliance. Therefore, I am not really sure what your attempted point is.</p> And, actually of course, that does not contradict T-Bear’s comment in the least. The operative language of the 17th Amendment is:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each 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.

Illinois law has specified the procedure to be followed in Illinois and is in complete satisfaction with the 17th Amendment.

So there is no Illinois law here that is superseded, or as you put it “overruled”, it is all in compliance. Therefore, I am not really sure what your attempted point is.

]]> By: brantl http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126460 brantl Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:06:20 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126460 <p>Actually, the constitution of the United States overrules the Illinois law, and it requires a special election. A temporary replacement can ge chosen by the governor, but the permanent replacement is to be chosen in a special election. Period.</p> Actually, the constitution of the United States overrules the Illinois law, and it requires a special election. A temporary replacement can ge chosen by the governor, but the permanent replacement is to be chosen in a special election. Period.

]]> By: bmaz http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126350 bmaz Tue, 13 Jan 2009 04:33:42 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126350 <p>Shocking isn’t it?</p> Shocking isn’t it?

]]> By: Otay http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/comment-page-1/#comment-126348 Otay Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:57:04 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/01/12/the-reiddurbin-fabrication-on-burris/#comment-126348 <p>You would think these “leaders” of the senate would know something about the law, considering it is their job to know and make laws.</p> <p>Yet they were played for complete rubes on, guess what? That’s right, the law. After being so publicly cocky about their stance against Burris on, guess what? Yep, the law.</p> <p>And then they so publicly fold after being humiliated on their completely unfounded stance on…the law.</p> <p>After everyone and his dog were cringing in anticipation, waiting for them to make fools out of themselves caving for the umpteenth+1 consecutive time.</p> You would think these “leaders” of the senate would know something about the law, considering it is their job to know and make laws.

Yet they were played for complete rubes on, guess what? That’s right, the law. After being so publicly cocky about their stance against Burris on, guess what? Yep, the law.

And then they so publicly fold after being humiliated on their completely unfounded stance on…the law.

After everyone and his dog were cringing in anticipation, waiting for them to make fools out of themselves caving for the umpteenth+1 consecutive time.

]]>