Comments on: Here’s What I Want to Know http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/ Sometime editor, all-the-time mother, delivering facts, reviews, commentary, and rants. Occasionally in that order. Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:21:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jbarntt http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-615810 jbarntt Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:12:04 +0000 http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/#comment-615810 Further to comment at #6: The phrase is a "recess appointment" when the president does it, and is not unusual. A governor appointing a new senator is similar, and seems to be the point of the 17th amendment. Further to comment at #6:

The phrase is a “recess appointment” when the president does it, and is not unusual. A governor appointing a new senator is similar, and seems to be the point of the 17th amendment.

]]> By: jbarntt http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-615809 jbarntt Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:05:40 +0000 http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/#comment-615809 Hi Anwyn, Elections take time, as there has to a be a campaign. In the meantime, the state is short in the senate. The power of the governor to appoint is analogous to the President's power to appoint a cabinet member or federal court judge when the senate is out of session. Hi Anwyn,

Elections take time, as there has to a be a campaign. In the meantime, the state is short in the senate. The power of the governor to appoint is analogous to the President’s power to appoint a cabinet member or federal court judge when the senate is out of session.

]]> By: Anwyn http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-615215 Anwyn Thu, 01 Jan 2009 05:26:00 +0000 http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/#comment-615215 I understand the need to fill the seat in a timely manner to continue equal representation. I am just wondering why it was left to one person, the gov., to appoint a position this powerful rather than special elections mandated. I'm guessing Daddyman has hit close to the truth. I understand the need to fill the seat in a timely manner to continue equal representation. I am just wondering why it was left to one person, the gov., to appoint a position this powerful rather than special elections mandated. I’m guessing Daddyman has hit close to the truth.

]]> By: jbarntt http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-615211 jbarntt Thu, 01 Jan 2009 05:24:09 +0000 http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/#comment-615211 Hi Anwyn, I believe the reason why governors are vested with the power to appoint a replacement senator is because every state has an equal number of senators, i.e., two, hence with one short the state is deprived of 50 percent of its representation in that body. The same is for the most part not the case in the House, and even where a state has only one or two representatives, the much larger size of the House would mean a smaller impact on its decision making process. Equal representation in the senate was a big deal at the constitutional convention for the smaller states. The "Great compromise" was that the house seats were population proportional and senate seats equal, hence the importance of a state to quickly regain both seats. Hi Anwyn,

I believe the reason why governors are vested with the power to appoint a replacement senator is because every state has an equal number of senators, i.e., two, hence with one short the state is deprived of 50 percent of its representation in that body. The same is for the most part not the case in the House, and even where a state has only one or two representatives, the much larger size of the House would mean a smaller impact on its decision making process.

Equal representation in the senate was a big deal at the constitutional convention for the smaller states. The “Great compromise” was that the house seats were population proportional and senate seats equal, hence the importance of a state to quickly regain both seats.

]]> By: Daddyman http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-614775 Daddyman Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:46:19 +0000 http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/#comment-614775 My guess is that they chose to appoint rather than re-elect out of expediency. The 17th amendment was written the better part of 100 years ago... communication for a statewide election would've been a bear back then. My guess is that they chose to appoint rather than re-elect out of expediency. The 17th amendment was written the better part of 100 years ago… communication for a statewide election would’ve been a bear back then.

]]> By: Anwyn http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-614537 Anwyn Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:55:23 +0000 http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/#comment-614537 Yeah, I saw the amendment and linked to info about it. Still doesn't explain why the amendment writers (or the states) thought it was a good idea to vest the power to give away the office in one man rather than mandate a replacement election. Yeah, I saw the amendment and linked to info about it. Still doesn’t explain why the amendment writers (or the states) thought it was a good idea to vest the power to give away the office in one man rather than mandate a replacement election.

]]> By: jbarntt http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/comment-page-1/#comment-614129 jbarntt Wed, 31 Dec 2008 07:36:27 +0000 http://www.anwyn.com/2008/12/30/heres-what-i-want-to-know/#comment-614129 Hi Anwyn, It is unlikely that Burris can be denied his seat, see Powell v. McCormack, a SCOTUS decision from 1969 which essentially said that the qualifications that congress can look at are limited to those specified in the constitution, and Burris meets those. As to why the governor has the power to appoint a replacement senator, until the next election, take a look at the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Bottom line is that Blago has put a big thumb in the eye of his fellow Democrats who left him to hang out and dry. He has appointed a down state politician who is clean and has no connection to the upstate machine, (Chicago), and he is African-American ! Smart thing for Harry Reid: Back down, accept Burris, he is a pretty good choice. Personally, I'd like Reid to fight it, but he'll probably cave. Blago sucker punched him with a decent appointment. Looks possible that Blago is guilty as Hell, but is willing to cause as much discomfort as he can to his fellow crooks in Chicago who threw him under the bus. I am saddened by these events, deeply saddened ;) Hi Anwyn,

It is unlikely that Burris can be denied his seat, see Powell v. McCormack, a SCOTUS decision from 1969 which essentially said that the qualifications that congress can look at are limited to those specified in the constitution, and Burris meets those.

As to why the governor has the power to appoint a replacement senator, until the next election, take a look at the 17th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Bottom line is that Blago has put a big thumb in the eye of his fellow Democrats who left him to hang out and dry. He has appointed a down state politician who is clean and has no connection to the upstate machine, (Chicago), and he is African-American !

Smart thing for Harry Reid: Back down, accept Burris, he is a pretty good choice. Personally, I’d like Reid to fight it, but he’ll probably cave. Blago sucker punched him with a decent appointment.

Looks possible that Blago is guilty as Hell, but is willing to cause as much discomfort as he can to his fellow crooks in Chicago who threw him under the bus.

I am saddened by these events, deeply saddened ;)

]]>