• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional amendment could ban governors from appointing Senate replacements

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In the aftermath of the Blago controversy, Senator Russ Feingold has introduced an amendment to the US Constitution that would strip away the power of governors to make interim Senate appointments. I think it's a good idea, and I think this amendment has an outside shot of making it. The bad news is that, if it does go into the Constitution, it will take years - Years in which Senate replacements will still be decided, not on the basis of qualifications, but on the basis of partisanship.

Article is here.
 
I think interim appointments until the next major election cycle (already practiced in several states) is a better way to go. It doesn't make sense to have a state unrepresented because of the actions of a single corrupt governor in a corrupt state.
 
I think interim appointments until the next major election cycle (already practiced in several states) is a better way to go. It doesn't make sense to have a state unrepresented because of the actions of a single corrupt governor in a corrupt state.

The seat would not be unrepresented. There would be a special election to fill that seat. Several states are already doing it that way.
 
This would strip States of one of their rights? It will never pass. Some Govs make dumb choices. Just look at New York's last two. :roll: Stuff happens.
 
This would strip States of one of their rights? It will never pass. Some Govs make dumb choices. Just look at New York's last two. :roll: Stuff happens.

I think your absolutely correct of this.

If the governor makes a bad choice we can remove him/her and the senator.
 
Flags are going off in my head right now. Haven't we learned not to change the constitution unless absolutely necessary? Blago is going to be impeached, and his appointment has not be sworn in. The constitution has not been exploited in this instance. This would just further the centralization of the federal government, and this time visibly! This will not make it, the states will not allow this!

No, I do not like this idea. I do not like it, I do not like it, I do not like it!
 
Last edited:
In the aftermath of the Blago controversy, Senator Russ Feingold has introduced an amendment to the US Constitution that would strip away the power of governors to make interim Senate appointments. I think it's a good idea, and I think this amendment has an outside shot of making it. The bad news is that, if it does go into the Constitution, it will take years - Years in which Senate replacements will still be decided, not on the basis of qualifications, but on the basis of partisanship.

Article is here.

While I was completely disgusted with the Blago thing, I am not sure I agree that it is the business of all states to tell individual states how the selection of their replacement Senators should be done.

If states want their Senatorial representation to be tainted, why should the rest of the states care, really.
 
In the aftermath of the Blago controversy, Senator Russ Feingold has introduced an amendment to the US Constitution that would strip away the power of governors to make interim Senate appointments. I think it's a good idea, and I think this amendment has an outside shot of making it. The bad news is that, if it does go into the Constitution, it will take years - Years in which Senate replacements will still be decided, not on the basis of qualifications, but on the basis of partisanship.

Article is here.

While I don't support appointments, I don't support the senate stripping away the rights of gov to appoint senate representatives.

I support people changing their own states laws for the gov to appoint like that.
 
I think it is a good idea to have special elections instead of a governor appointing someone. Sure voters can be bought off with hollow promises but it is the most democratic and corrupt free solution. States and cities have ballot issues and elections all the time, so there is no reason why the people can not pick a replacement
 
The seat would not be unrepresented. There would be a special election to fill that seat. Several states are already doing it that way.

Wouldn't it be better to do it on a biennial election cycle when there are more people voting than in a special election which typically has far lower turnouts?
 
I think it is a good idea to have special elections instead of a governor appointing someone. Sure voters can be bought off with hollow promises but it is the most democratic and corrupt free solution. States and cities have ballot issues and elections all the time, so there is no reason why the people can not pick a replacement

Yea, but letting either party fool with The Constitution is a bad idea who knows what else they will try to make a right or what right they may want to remove.
 
Yea, but letting either party fool with The Constitution is a bad idea who knows what else they will try to make a right or what right they may want to remove.


Its not just either party adding an amendment to change the constitution.


The Road to Ratification: Amending the U.S. Constitution
The Road to Ratification: Amending the U.S. Constitution

The basic procedures to amend the U.S. Constitution are set forth in Article V. While the process appears simple, the road to ratification is not an easy one. In its entire history, the U.S. Constitution has been amended only 27 times. The first 10 amendments-which constitute the Bill of Rights-were added in 1791. It has been over a decade since the last amendment-Amendment XXVII-was ratified.

An examination of the ratification process reveals the difficult hurdles that a proposed amendment must overcome to be added to the U.S. Constitution.
Step 1. Passage by Congress

The language of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution first must be agreed upon by Congress. A two-thirds vote of both houses is required to pass the legislation proposing the amendment. Unlike most acts of Congress, a proposal for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not involve the President of the United States. After its passage by Congress, the proposed amendment is sent directly to the Office of Federal Register at the National Archives. (Note: Usually, a bill goes first to the White House for the President’s signature or veto.)

Step 2. Notification of the States

Next, the states must be notified of the passage of a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This process is:

1. After the legislation proposing a constitutional amendment is passed by Congress, it is sent to the National Archives.
2. The national archivist prepares certified copies of the language of the proposed amendment for each state.
3. A packet is sent to the governor in each state. The packet include a letter from the national archivist requesting return notification that the packet was received, the certified copies of the language, 50 slip law copies, and a form for the state to fill out if the proposed amendment is ratified.

Step 3. Ratification by the States

Ratification of the amendment language as adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature may make no changes to the language, or its ratification is invalid.

A state legislature that has rejected an amendment may subsequently return to it and vote affirmatively for the ratification. On the other hand, it is generally held that once a legislature has voted affirmatively, the ratification cannot be rescinded by the legislature.

It is sometimes forgotten that “state ratification” of an amendment actually means ratification by the state legislatures. The affirmative action of a state legislature on legislation to ratify a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution is final. Just as the President has no formal role in proposing amendments, governors have no constitutional role in their ratification. Technically, a governor’s signature on the bill or resolution is not necessary. Often states jockey to be the first to pass a U.S. constitutional amendment, and the courts have validated legislation passed by a state legislature prior to the receipt by the governor of the certified amendment language.

[Note: More detail about state legislative procedures to ratify a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution will be added shortly; the information is being updated.]

Step 4. Tracking State Actions

Under the U.S. Constitution, proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect. The official count is kept by Office of the Federal Register at the National Archives. For each proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Office maintains an open file on state ratification and tracks states’ actions.

If legislation ratifying the amendment is passed by a state, the legislature must return to the National Archives the following items:

1. The enacted legislative document containing language that mirrors (is identical to) the certified text of the proposed amendment.
2. The ratification form with the required authenticating signature(s) and title(s).

If the language passed by a state legislature does not mirror the official text, the National Archives holds the legislative document and notifies the state. The letter sent to the state recommends that the state clarify its actions in order to avoid court challenges.

Whenever the requisite number of states (38) have ratified a proposed amendment, the national archivist proclaims it as a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Actual certification is published immediately in the Federal Register and eventually in the United States Statutes-at-Large.


Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
 
Flags are going off in my head right now. Haven't we learned not to change the constitution unless absolutely necessary? Blago is going to be impeached, and his appointment has not be sworn in. The constitution has not been exploited in this instance. This would just further the centralization of the federal government, and this time visibly! This will not make it, the states will not allow this!

No, I do not like this idea. I do not like it, I do not like it, I do not like it!

Are you sure about this?
 
This would strip States of one of their rights? It will never pass. Some Govs make dumb choices. Just look at New York's last two. :roll: Stuff happens.
I know we argue alot, but I absolutely agree with you on this one.
 
Try reading the 17th Amendment.
 
I like how Arkansas does it. If I read it correctly, the governor appoints a person to the seat, but that person can not run in the next election. that way, the seat is filled, but there's still an election for it.
 
Are you sure about this?
I am sure, the Senate has not allowed Burris to be sworn in.

EDIT: nvm, he was sworn in on the 15th.
 
Last edited:
I like how Arkansas does it. If I read it correctly, the governor appoints a person to the seat, but that person can not run in the next election. that way, the seat is filled, but there's still an election for it.

:shock: Not a cousin or something?
 
Well, danarhea, there's a long history of appointments. How many have gone bad in history?

Is this really a big problem or are we simply suffering from short memories?
 
Populist garbage, this will be dead in a month.
 
Sounds like nothing more than knee jerk reactions to the Blago mess. If they want to alter something make it so a Governor that is facing charges at the time an appointment must be made cannot make the appointment. The power can then be delegated to the Lt. Governor. Patterson has to declare an election for Gillibrand's district seat which is much quicker to organize in a short span of time as opposed to a state wide election. Especially considering how the clowns in Albany operate, the SOBs cant even get the state budget passed on time.
 
Repealing the 17th amendment is suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch a better idea.

I disagree. There's too much backroom dealing without the 17th. I want someone picked because he's the best for the job, not because the speaker of the house owes him a favor. Besides, if the state government can't decide on someone, the seat stays vacant, which is bad for the state. It happened fairly often back before the 17th.
 
Back
Top Bottom