With everyone focused upon President Obama’s State of the Union Address, it seems as though something important has been overlooked by the media.
It is shameful that almost no one, including Republicans, seems to be outraged that despite Scott Brown’s recent electoral victory, interim Massachusetts Sen. Paul Kirk is still casting votes.
Paul Kirk was appointed to fill the unexpired term of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy by Gov. Deval Patrick.
Sen. Kirk declared that he would remain in the Senate after the special election and would vote in favor of healthcare legislation. Specifically, Kirk said this would be his “responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Sen. Kennedy’s agenda.”
This is while William Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has been clear about the fact that Kirk’s elected successor would be left in a state of limbo until at least Feb. 20. Galvin’s spokesman, Brian McNiff, said, “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”
No matter how unfair, maybe we could swallow this cruel piece of reality if this were simply the process required under the laws and traditions of both Massachusetts and the Senate. However, a simple examination of history’s evidence paints a much different, and darker, picture.
At least as far back as 1938, the Senate was forced to deal with such problems. On that occasion, interim Tennessee Sen. George Berry, like Kirk, argued that he was able to retain his seat until his successor was either certified or seated by the Senate. He held this view despite the fact that the Tennessee statute stated that an interim senator “shall hold office until his successor is elected at the next biennial election and qualifies.”
For resolution of the matter, Berry’s argument was considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee. It considered all relevant laws, including the Seventeenth Amendment, and Senate precedents. At the conclusion of their work, the Judiciary Committee reported that “the term of service of a Senator appointed to fill a vacancy in an unexpired term ends on the day when his successor is elected by the people.” Subsequently, the full Senate, without dissent, agreed to the resolution.
Considering the Massachusetts law is very similar to the noted Tennessee statue, a comparison of the two cases should remain relatively simple. The statute reads, “Upon failure to choose a senator in congress or upon a vacancy in that office, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall serve until the election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.”
If Massachusetts law, Senate resolutions, nor Senate precedents allow for such Democratic tricks, what could? It could be possible that, right or wrong, Massachusetts officials have always delayed the certification of special election winners and have prevented them from taking their seat until all votes are counted.
To find this answer, one is forced to turn the pages of history all the way back to 2007 and the election of Democratic Representative Niki Tsongas. Rep. Tsongas was elected to replace Martin Meehan and was seated in the House of Representatives only two days after her electoral victory.
Doesn’t it seem as though Massachusetts officials have a double standard when it comes to seating Democratic and Republican special election winners? Rep. Tsongas was elected and certified in only two days because the Democrats needed her vote in order to override President Bush’s veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program expansion. Sen. Scott Brown is being denied his seat in such a timely manner simply because, unlike Rep. Tsongas, he does not support the Democratic legislative agenda.
Sen. Scott Brown has been duly elected by the people of Massachusetts. It is his right under the Seventeenth Amendment, precedent, and Massachusetts law to have almost immediately taken his seat in the Senate. At the very least, Paul Kirk should not be sitting in the seat for which the people of Massachusetts have designated for Scott Brown.
It is more than a shame that the media isn’t decrying such dirty politics on a daily basis. This is not a left or right issue—it is an issue of right and wrong.
Massachusetts officials are delaying sending Scott Brown to the Senate and are leaving Paul Kirk as senator for one reason — Paul Kirk will vote their way and Scott Brown won’t.
Essentially, the people are, once again, being treated to the Democrats’ bag of dirty tricks. We cannot stand for such. We must demand that government officials recall the words of Mark Twain when he said that their “function is to obey orders, not originate them.”
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Tuesday, February 2, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment