Move To Rewrite Law On Appointed Senators

(AP)  The recent appointments of several U.S. senators are prompting a move to amend the Constitution.

The proposed amendment would require a special election anytime a Senate seat is vacant and would prohibit governors from appointing senators.

The House and Senate Judiciary committees hold a joint hearing this week.

Senator Russ Feingold says the recent controversies surrounding gubernatorial appointments to the Senate make clear they are an anachronism that must end.

The election of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden opened up 2 seats in the Senate. The move by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Ken Salazar to the Cabinet opened up two more. All four vacancies were filled by governors.

Most notable is Sen. Roland Burris, who was appointed by now-impeached and ousted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

[sueg13]

Oh yes, just what we need! This bunch of dimwits trying to rewrite our Constitution! They need to all just go away!

[iheardthisbefore]

This issue ALREADY IS in the hands of the individual States and their electorate.
The 17th Amendment is quite clear.
If the electorate of any State wants to change the selection process to fill a vacancy, they may
seek to change the laws of THEIR STATE.
The Constitution, in it's present form works fine...it's the politics and the State's politicians that
are the problem...and the people have a solution...it's called the ballot box and election day.
Elect another Governor.
Elect another Senator.
Elect another Congressman.
And, if they break the law or abuse the law, Impeach them.

The laws already exist for all of this...it just takes time and action by the people.

[MalloryDavis]

The majority of Americans will not delve and seek out information concerning candidates from any platform. Most are pablum swilling babies and are unable to dessiminate complicated information. Therefore, they need a liberal to explain it because they can twist the moisture from a green bean with just words alone.

We need another Boston Tea Party. Throw the bums out every term not by Constitutional Law, but just by obvious action.

[bradkt1]

This is none of the federal government's business. It should be left to the states. Just because Illinois had a crook for a governor who acted a fool does not mean that the system is broken. Some governors have appointed some very good senators when a vacancy has occurred. Sometimes, it doesn't make any sense to incur the expense of holding a special election...such as when there is only a year or so left in the term to be served.

In the case of Roland Burris, this should be resolved by the voters of Illinois and their representatives. In New York, just because the Kennedy family and the news media tried unsuccessfully to give a Senate seat to Caroline Kennedy didn't mean that the system was broken. Governor Patterson appointed someone else.

However this sorts out in the end, it should be left to the respective states to sort this out. There is no one simple fix for every situation. If some individual states want to hold a special election every time there is a vacancy, so be it. If other states don't, so be it.

[sockpuppet4]

Whats the tally?

In all, how many republican senators have been appointed in history, and how many democrats?

It sounds like the republicans want to take their basketball and go home.

[rat_cheer]

Why is Obama doing nothing about Burris? Holder?

His silence is deafening. He seems aloof and oblivious to these gross insults to the people.

[wecandothis2]

TWO POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR REPLACING SENATORS.

(1.) When a person runs for the Senate, the candidate must publicly state the name of the person that will replace him/her, assuming the Senator eventually vacates the Senate seat for a presidential cabinet post. Example, Senator Clinton leaves New York for Secretary of State; but the name she publicly gave as her replacement PRIOR TO WINNING THE SENATE SEAT, will step in to replace her. There are no surprises in this method because the voters knew Senator Clintons replacement before they voted for her.

* * * or

(2.) The state party for which the Senator belongs selects the Senator's replacement. Example, President Obama left the Illinois U.S. Senate seat, therefore the Illinois Democratic Party vote (choose) Obama's U.S. Senate seat replacement.

[wecandothis2]

TWO POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS FOR REPLACING SENATORS.

(1.) When a person runs for the Senate, the candidate must publicly state the name of the person that will replace him/her, assuming the Senator eventually vacates the Senate seat for a presidential cabinet post. Example, Senator Clinton leaves New York for Secretary of State; but the name she publicly gave as her replacement PRIOR TO WINNING THE SENATE SEAT, will step in to replace her. There are no surprises in this method because the voters knew Senator Clintons replacement before they voted for her.

* * * or

(2.) The state party for which the Senator belongs selects the Senator's replacement. Example, President Obama left the Illinois U.S. Senate seat, therefore the Illinois Democratic Party vote (choose) on Obama's U.S. Senate seat replacement.

[KazooD]

First I can not stand our do nothing senators or my congressman from the woodlands. However we do have term limits.It is called the BALLOT BOX! It is up to the voters to 1. study the candidates and where they stand on the issues and 2. get off your dead butts and vote them out if they are doing a bad job.
If I was running abusiness I would not fire someone doing a good job, just because they are there a long time.
"Bad laws are made by bad politicians who get elected by good people who don't vote.
Posted by retiredgustav at 2:01 PM : Mar 8, 2009

I agree. It seems that those who are pushing for term limits are more interested in affecting the representation of OTHER states. Or perhaps their candidates lost the previous election and they are a little bitter.

[RepubsSuck]

I find it somewhat amazing (not really) that politicians can write new laws or amend the Constitution to accommodate themselves and supposedly the general public's well-being, but they can't seem to manage to have written law(s) that would have regulated the mortgage industry...now folks, what's wrong with this type of governing???