Quite funny, and of course sad that a right wing know nothing runs here to exclaim the death of another human....be he a member of the opposition or not. sputdr....you should be proud of yourself.
Another brilliant post exposing the IQ of this forums brightest liberal. Just out of interest, are you diagnosed as a paranoid schizo by any chance?
It has nothing to do with the klan......they are not the power brokers of the world.....ask Senator Wellstone what he thinks of the worlds power brokers (well that is if you could ask him). :eek: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2006/131206_b_Senator.htm http://infowars.net/articles/december2006/131206Anthrax.htm
Winston Churchill said it best......... "The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is."
Democrats are poor losers because they think they are entitled to power. But Republicans feel they deserve it when they win or lose. Incidentally, the Republicans dropped the ball and the Libertarians/independents stayed home on election day. Meanwhile, the ethnocentric Hispanics all voted Democrat and were encouraged to vote Democrat by their Spanish-speaking talk radio, after the immigration fiasco. No surprise since most Mexicans in America come from Southern Mexico, which is full of Leftist Obrador supporters. Republicans supporting Amnesty makes no sense as it simply imports more Latin Leftists and essentially hands more power to the socialist Democrats.
Here' s what I consider an interesting dilemma. We obviously know what the law is; the Gov appoints whoever he wants. However, the people elected a Gov, not a god. Obviously, at one point in history, one party or the other set it up this way to serve their immediate needs. Now, we all live with it. Question...... Johnson cannot return. As Governor, don't you have a moral obligation, although not legal, to appoint a Dem as the people originally demanded? A much better political story, btw, is the Aguirre/SEC battle. Look at WSJ letter to the Ed by Grassley.
The US constitution was written before any of the current political parties existed, so originally, at least, it wasn't really done this way to serve the immediate interests of a particular party. Article I section 3 deals with the question of vacancies in the Senate. The relevant language in the original constitution was: So the power was originally given to the State Governor, to make a temporary appointment, and to the State Legislature, to make a permanent appointment once it next met. Probably the major reason why things were done that way was to guarantee that the several States would be able to feel they would retain stronger control over the Federal government under the proposed constitution ... remember that the States were not exactly in a very big rush to ratify the new constitution after the Revolutionary War. The method worked well enough until right before the Civil War, when serious disputes between the (new at the time) Republican party and its supporters, and the Democratic party and its supporters, caused some State legislatures to fail to appoint replacement Senators at all. But even before the Civil War there had already been a long standing, if sporadic, effort to change the laws. Progressive Republicans and Populists continued to press the issue after the war, making it into a political plank and arguing in favour of direct popular elections for the replacements, and after the turn of the century the idea really took off, and a couple of Western states even introduced direct elections for replacement Senators. Finally, in 1912, the original language of the constitution was over-ridden by the second clause of the Seventeenth Amendment: So language was introduced suggesting that the selection of a replacement should really be by direct popular election. In principle, then, it doesn't benefit either party's interests. In fact, though, popular input was clearly made subject to the will of the State legislatures. States always guarded their power pretty jealously. So now, the State legislatures can, if they choose, give the Governor the power to make a temporary appointment until such time as a popular election can be held, and also choose whether or not to require a special election in such a case. Interestingly enough, South Dakota is one of the ten states that never ratified the Seventeenth amendment. Still, the situation in South Dakota apparently is that the State legislature did give away the power to the governor (Mike Rounds) and that -- if the seat becomes vacant -- no special election needs to be called before the next general election in 2008. So the governor would be called on to make an appointment, if Johnson should die. Naturally I hope the man will recover, and that none of this will be necessary. If Johnson is merely incapacitated, then the situation seems to be less clear. According to comments by the South Dakota Secretary of State, they're not quite sure what to do in that case, or even whether having a stroke is sufficient for the Senate seat to be considered `vacant.' Oh no. It's like one of those awful philosophy 101 questions. If you're hiding under a bridge from the Nazis, and your baby is going to give your position away, is it moral to smother the baby to save yourself? I used to really hate these questions Only someone who has never actually been in that situation would ever raise the question for debate in the first place. One can argue in many ways, for sure, but my general feeling is no, there's no such moral obligation for the governor. There's an obligation, having been duly elected, for him to serve the people who elected him according to the best of his ability, which to me, means choosing the person he thinks would best represent the people's interests, in his own estimation. If the people of South Dakota are unhappy with that outcome, then they really need to press for a reform of State law such that a special election could be held in a case like this, or to vote Mike Rounds out at the next opportunity. Agreed. The Senate is going to remain very closely split, no matter what the outcome. Grassley is on the side of the angels in this fight.
If something did happen, then the governor should respect the will of the people, and appoint a democrat to replace him. Can you imagine how apeshit the klannish would be, if the roles were reversed, and a dem governor replaced a republican elected senator with a dem in order to control the senate? These neoklowns have no honor, no principle, just an unending lust for power and control...