How long do you think it will be before that "Lee" character shows up and insists that this is all the work of Karl Rove, the dark overlord of the universe?

Jay, you make some good points, but there's no way anyone is going to make any changes with such close margins in both Houses of Congress.

I think your proposal has merit for the House and Senate, but the Supreme Court, given the lifetime appointments (a wronged justice can't run again to rectify the situation) and the small number of justices that constitute 2/3 of the body I could see the ability to vote off colleagues being abused.

The Republicans have controled the House, Senate and WH for the last six years, and just how much conservative legislation has been accomplished? I realy don't see what difference it makes which party controls the senate. Neither one has enough seats to ram anything by the other party, no matter who sets the agenda.

I can't get very excited about having another ineffectual Republican senator sitting in the speakers office just so Nancy can't. At least she has the opportunity to prove what a looser she is while in the limelight. The Democrats are such a bunch of misfits, I doubt that they will be able to agree on anything, and we are all better off with them behind closed doors arguing with one another. Without a stong leader (ie. LBJ or Clinton) they will not be able to pull any agenda together.

Strom T's last years showed that being brain dead is not a factor...Of course Dr. Frist should make that determination after seeing video evidence...
...remember we had a President with ALZ's..

"Members of Congress, no matter how old or incapacitated, may serve as long as they are able to blink at least one eye in response to questions"

"The Constitution, an old but living part of a tree, shall be our guide. Members of the Supreme Court shall be considered living until the 80th year after the year their high school class would normally have graduated. Nominees of Republican Presidents shall be assumed to have turned liberal and their votes recorded in the most brain-dead manner available. Adult diapers may be issued at no cost to a Justice but shall not be required for stuffed panda bears substituted in rare public hearings".

I would think it might be up to each State how to deal with the question, but I'm no legal eagle.

Don't states have the ability to recall congresscritters? Schedule a recall election and remove the incapacitated officeholder.

Jay, that would mean a Democratic elected Senate would pass a constitutional amendment to allow a Republican Governor the power to appoint a replacement (perhaps himself) to fill the shoes of one of their own, the Democrat pro-choice Johnson, which would mean in practice, that the Dems would be voting themselves out of their precarious hold on Senatorial power..fat chance. Before Johnson's illness, the Republican Governor, the strict anti abortionist Mike Rounds, was already rumoured to be considering running for Johnson's Senate seat when he came up for re-election in 2008. Let's hope Johnson makes a full recovery.. and this doesn't become an issue, but if it does Oregon's way is better"

Jay, of course your proposed solution would not be effective in the hypothetical case of Sen. Johnson being incapacitated, because the Dems are not going to let the Republican Governor of SDAK name his replacement.

I-5 does appear to limit the power to do so only to cases of "disorderly behavior," and so the question is, does this language limit the body's ability to remove members for reasons other than that. I would argue that it does, and therefore an amendment is required. But that is an off-the-cuff educated guess, calling upon my fuzzy recollection of the rules of statutory construction.

I'd be pleased to hear a more scholarly opinion.

Sorry if my link didn't come through..The Oregon way is simply to hold a snap by-election if one of their senators must retire, as is done in Congress..That would seem the fairest 'small d' democratic way.

Too bad, sooo sad. Johnson's senate seat will stay a big D. There are several instances in history where a senator was too ill to leave his home state to vote in washington. There is one case there a republican senator was ill and offered to resign only if the governor of his state would appoint a fellow republican...the governor declined and the senator kept his seat.

I also wonder if the tables were turned, say the reps had a one seat senate lead and a republican had the same thing happen as happened to Johnson, would jay tea be looking to change the rule or law? I think not. You are not concerned that the right thing is done, you sinply want your political party to have more power. Simple as that.

He essentially represents the constituency of South Dakota and has done nothing to breech the ethics rules of the Senate. It is the State's call. Just my opinion to reinforce that of epador's above.

That measure would "disenfranchise" the voters of South Dakota.

I would be in favor of the mechanism for removing an incapacitated senator at the state level.

Jay

Your proposal has merit, but there should be a very important proviso (probably requiring a Constitutional amendment) that the appointed replacement must be of the same party, regardless of the whims of a governor who my be from the other party. In that way, the will of the people of the affected state would be preserved. A governor of the opposite party should never be permitted to appoint according to his party affiliation, especially in a case like Johnson's where it would not only be contrary to the already expressed will of the state's electorate, but would initiate a profound national change in the outcome of that recent national election.

The alternate solution would be to amend the Constitution if necessary and require a new election, just as is the case in the House.

No governor should be handed the power to overturn, in effect, the national results of an election because he just happens to be in an unique position by party affiliation to do so.

The ultimate objective must be to preserve the will of the people, both in the affected state, and nationally in a case such as Johnson's.

No one could conceivably argue that maintaining the will of the people in their electoral choice is one of the most fundamental principles of our Constitution. Otherwise, the Founding Fathera would have peovided government by fiat.

Even though a Constitutional amendment is a long and arduous process, it is imperative to preserve the will of the peole.

remember we had a President with ALZ's..

.....Jimmy Carter?

...the appointed replacement must be of the same party, regardless of the whims of a governor who my be from the other party. In that way, the will of the people of the affected state would be preserved.

The political party of the disabled Senator is a representation of the will of that state's people at the time the Senator was elected, but not the will of the people today. In Ohio, for example, a Senator elected two years ago might be Republican, while today's will is Democratic.

A quick election seems like the most fair solution to me, and the replacement serves out the balance of the outgoing Senator's term.

VagaBond

Sorry V, your continued sliming of Carter does not change the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize...something none of you Repube prezzes will ever see.

Tho HW might receive an Oscar nomination for his performance at the recent Jeb Bush FL farewell.

OTH- You Repubes have not only the sole certified ALZ president, but a current one w/ severe dementia.

LBJ was fond of saying that someone was "thinner than piss on a hot rock." By that standard, Geo. W is thinner than piss on a hot sun.

Gee, ug, you bring up an interesting point. Who was the first president to win a Nobel Prize? Here's a hint: it was just about a century ago.

Carter's Nobel Prize is a joke -- much like most of the Peace Prize winners of the last couple of decades.

And ug, your tone is somewhat familiar. I think I might need to do a little investigating...

J.

And it is worth noting that with the partisan political opportunism that is evident in a lot of places today surrounding Johnson's illness, not everyone is looking for ways to get/hold power. Mike Castle, a Republican from Delaware, seems to have his head on straight.

Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del., said Friday that word of Johnson's problem hit close to home.

Castle suffered a mild stroke in September and was unable to actively campaign for reelection for more than a month.

Castle said Johnson should not even be thinking about resigning and should take the time now to recover.

Overhead in Castle's office: "Senator Castle, I have Karl Rove calling for you, on line 4 -- and he, uhm.., seems a bit upset..."

(with a shout out to my homie Grandaddy Long Legs, who apparently likes to bug people - heh)

I feel I should bring up two points here:

1) My piece was solely on vacating a seat. The method for re-filling that seat is another matter entirely. While I think there is a good discussion for how vacant Senate seats ought to be filled, that wasn't really considering that.

B) As painful as it is to admit, Lee is having a "blind pig" moment when he mentions that the political climate in a state can shift, and shift rapidly. Here in New Hampshire, both our Senators are Republicans. But last month, the Democrats swept pretty much other office -- held the governorship, took both House seats, and took both houses of our legislature and the Executive Council. So if something untoward were to happen to either Senator Gregg or Senator Sununu, the idea that our governor would be bound to appoint a Republican would be a bit odd.

All in all, I think an election would be a good thing. But it should be left up to the states.

J.

Lee

In regard to your reply....

As one of the 5 liberals in the state of Ohio, I could hardly but agree w/ you on that point.

All I would say is that maintaining the previous party choice of the state's electorate would be superior to handing that choice over to a governor who has fallen into an "accidental" position to do it by fiat.

I would suffer thru a GOP replacement for de Wine before I'd ever consider giving a fiat to a governor...especially a P.O.S. like the ex Secretary of State-OH-governor-wannabee vote- fixing Blackwell.

your continued sliming of Carter

No one has to slime Carter; the little jew-hater is doing quite well on his own.

Jay

The flaw in leaving it up to the states, as you suggested, is the result that one state could inflict the its option, not just on itself, but on an entire nation. There is enough of that lopsidedness possible as a result of the inequities of the Electoral College. We don't need more of that invigorated with the introduction of Heinz 57 vasrieties of solutions for procedure on senatorial replacement.

For everyone to be equally enfranchised in this country there must be a certain degree of uniformity in procedure, particularly when the variant procedure affects the entire nation.

Ug, then you'd have to rewrite even more of the Constitution. The Several States have always had a certain latitude in a lot of matters, including running their own elections and choosing how they handle vacancies. It's just a matter of state's rights and limits on the power of the federal government.

J.

I hear you Ug, and I agree that having the governor choose is not the best choice for the people, because it in no way reflects the will of the people with respect to the senate seat. The people may have decided they like Republican leadership at the state level, but Democratic represntation in the US Senate, and letting the governor choose the replacement for a US Senate seat seems stoopid.

As to Jay's suggestion for changing the way we deal with a disabling illness (or whatever incapacitation), what say we leave it up the that party's political leaders to determine the outcome -- and take away any possible political advantage for the opposition -- and thereby dis-incent Karl Rove from poisoning any Senators (high-five for G-Daddy LL).

Jay

"One man, one vote" changed a lot of state laws about elections.

In that spirit, I think a constitutional amendment could be constructed. The reality of a multiple set of procedures, some being the result of gubernatorial choice, would be to give one man potentially the power of millions of votes.

I would think that a states' righter would put an even higher value on protection of individuals' rights to the extent that one tilts to libertarianism.

No one could conceivably argue that maintaining the will of the people in their electoral choice is one of the most fundamental principles of our Constitution. Otherwise, the Founding Fathera would have peovided government by fiat.

Even though a Constitutional amendment is a long and arduous process, it is imperative to preserve the will of the peole.
Posted by: Ugnohooiam

Oh give me a break! 'The will of the people' canard gets rather old. Look the will of the people is expressed at every 2 and 4 year cycle by voting. After that it is in the hands of the representatives of government that were duly elected. That's why we call this country a Republic.

We don't elect our President by popular vote and that was instituted by the Founders. We until the 16th amendment did not directly elect Senators. that was done by whatever means was defined by the State constitution. If anything the 16th Amendment has been a diaster as it has eliminated the direct representation of the seveal States into the affairs of the Federal Govt.

To be blunt, you're an idiot.

" ..especially a P.O.S. like the ex Secretary of State-OH-governor-wannabee vote- fixing Blackwell."

Posted by: Ugnohooiam at December 16, 2006 11:31 AM

Uhhh sorry loser, voting fraud is standard opperating procedure of the dirtbag democrats.Plastic face Pelosi keeps getting busted trying to appoint the most criminal of your party. What a bunch of pathetic fiends.

Tea,

Actually I oppose your suggestion on the grounds that it totally obliterates the provisions of the 17th amendment. My suggestion would be that the individual governors be premitted to declare the Seantor so afflicted as unable to perform their duties and then proceed with the special election as defined by the 17th Amend.

OT: The fashinonistas will note that both Jay and Darleen and wearing very nice Carter-inspired asshats.

Carter brokered peace in the Middle East, and a responsible long-term solution. The war-mongers on both sides of the accord just managed to derail it.

There are no Republicans today, in or out of office, that come even close to having the abilities to do what Carter did. Bush can't speak without having prepared remarks ("hey, Israeli dude..."), and none of the Republican leaders visible have any diplomatic skillz, while H. Clinton, Gore and Obama both show that they have the skillz and potential to broker a similar peace accord.

I've got errands to do, and since the recent remarks above from JohnMc and Rob indicate the Wiznut Konservative Klown Kar has screeched to a halt in the center ring and dumped off the usual load of red-nosed idiots I"ll sign off of this interesting discussion. It was fun while it lasted. G-Daddy LL - you are da man!

If it weren't for Habitat For Humanity, there would be little to say at the future Carter funeral. And the idiots who vote on the Nobel Peace Prize realized just talking about Habitat would be an embarrassment, so they threw him a bone for the pitiful old man who was one of the most inept presidents in our history.

Otherwise Carter would have the shortest funeral in history.

Carter brokered peace in the Middle East

Jaysus on a Pony... Lee enjoys himself a little revisionism almost as much as Jhimmi the jew-hater himself.

Sadat was the one that proposed the negotiations.

Diplomatic skills? Bolton has been highly effective at the UN but the Dems, in full emotional "screw-America we want to be Europeans" pique won't even consider his job performance.

Nothing says "sore winner" more than the refusal to admit they were wrong about Bolton.

If Reagan had alzheimers during his presidency, it shows that one republican with a disease can accomplish more than any democrat ever could while in his right mind.

A sad commentary.

It's a little late in the game to be changing rule's! The governor decide's if necessary..

Carter? phewey that!

Just an FYI

In the last 20 years, 8 senators have died in office.

During that period only 1 Democrat was replaced by a Republican. While 2 Republicans were replaced by Democrats (3 if you count Lincoln Chaffee ;-).

Are the Republicans now "due" so that it is fair?

To claim that it is somehow unfair for governors to appoint replacemen