Quote from flytiger:
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.
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:
... and if Vacancies happen by Resignation or otherwise, during the
Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make
temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall
then fill such Vacancies.
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:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate,
the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill
such vacancies: provided that the legislature of any State may empower the
executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the
vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
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.'
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?
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.
A much better political story, btw, is the Aguirre/SEC battle. Look
at WSJ letter to the Ed by Grassley.
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.
