It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will Rod Blagojevitch Beat the Rap?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Q. Should a state’s governor appoint a senator to fill a vacancy?

A. The Illinois two term Democrat governor Rod Blagojevich has been impeached, and New York’s Democrat lieutenant governor turned governor David Patterson has been criticized for a flawed process in choosing the successor to first Senator Barack Obama now our President and then for Senator Hillary Clinton now our Secretary of State.

Reference. As just one of the many pro-slavery compromises made in 1787 by the Founding Fathers, they agreed to change the unicameral legislature of the earlier Articles of Confederation under which we had fought and won the Revolutionary War, to a bicameral legislature. The upper chamber of the new legislature - reminiscent both of the British House of Lords and the classic Roman Republic - was denominated the Senate. The lower chamber or the people’s chamber was denominated the House. While all House members were chosen directly by the people, wealthy entrenched interests in control of state legislatures choose the senators until 1913. Yet another pro-slavery compromise.

US. Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, “The Senate . . “ and originally Clause 3; “ . . 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.”

This clause was replaced by the 17th Amendment (1913) to read as follows: “When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such 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.” See Note 1.

For comparison, here is the provision already in effect in the case of a vacancy occurring in the House. US Con. Article 1, Section 2. Clause 4. “When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.”

The two instances of the gubernatorial appointment process going seriously awry have raised serious questions about the current process in place for filing vacancies in the US Senate. Illinois, New York to be specific. Delaware while not tainted, is not an example of a happy methodology either. Colorado also filled a senate vacancy but with little or no fanfare. See Note 2. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has proposed changing the current process in the case of Senate vacancies to be the same as that in the House. I suggest any proposed amendment should be concise, unambiguous, easy to read and to understand.


Proposed Amendment to Require Elections to Fill Senate Vacancies.

1. In the case of a vacancy in the Senate caused by death or by resignation, a special election shall be held in the state so effected, not sooner than 31 days nor longer than 60 days as the state may determine.

2. In the event none of the candidates receive a majority of the votes cast, then a second election shall be held 14 days later between the two candidates receiving the most votes.

3. The candidate certified to have received the majority of the votes cast shall serve out the time remaining in the vacated term.

4. This amendment shall be effective immediately upon being ratified by the requisite number of states, provided that shall have occurred within 7 years of the submission to the several states. END.



Note 1. Out of a population of 3 million, only 38,818 voted in the 1789 presidential elections. Less than 1.3% of the population. The 1790 Census population was 3.0 million with a free population of 2.4 million and 600,000 slaves That low number of voters was because only white men over 21 years of age, free, and in most states, a property owner, could actually vote. en.wikipedia.org...

Our concept of popular democracy has -evolved- over the last 200 years. (People like me urge OPEN voting by anyone who lives here. On proof of ID. Not registered? OK, come anyway, and register at the voting booth! Yes, voting twice or more times would be illegal as it is now).

Note 2. Wisconsin, Oregon and Massachusetts already have direct elections to fill a senate vacancy as is already required to fill all House vacancies.
www.dailykos.com...


Oh, WILL Rod Blagojevitch survive
the Senate vote to convict on the House impeachment charges?

I predict the Illinois Senate will NOT convict!

[edit on 1/27/2009 by donwhite]




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   
of course he wont survive

he told Bank of America to go to hell, publicly and loudly

then the NEXT DAY he gets these trumped up corruption charges

its SAD that the only DECENT governer is being outed and eradicated systematically

DONT BELIEVE the MEDIA LIES!



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
As just one of the many pro-slavery compromises made in 1787 by the Founding Fathers, they agreed to change the unicameral legislature of the earlier Articles of Confederation under which we had fought and won the Revolutionary War, to a bicameral legislature. The upper chamber of the new legislature - reminiscent both of the British House of Lords and the classic Roman Republic - was denominated the Senate.


This is a popular lie. The creation of the senate was in response to the creation of a stronger federal government than was outlined under the articles of confederation.

States not wishing to lose their sovereignty petitioned for some form of representation of their state interests within the federal government. The reason was to ensure that the sovereignty of the states could never be overruled by a tyranny of the masses.

As the constitution was laid out, the largest obstacle to federal power was state power. The 17th amendment largely destroyed that obstacle and we have seen ever more federal interference in the running of the states.

The founding fathers would find the current situation in California in regards to the legalization of certain substances to be a perfect example of what is wrong with federal power over the states. As far as I know, no state ever voted to give the federal government control over what substances may or may not enter a person's body.

It should take an amendment to the constitution for the federal government to have the power to regulate something not even mentioned in the constitution. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution is in the domain of the states.

Jon



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 10:52 AM
link   
I don't think he'll survive the impeachment proceedings but, I think he will have a great post political career as a talk show host competing with Jerry Springer.

I can hear the cheers...Blago Blago Blago... it has a natural ring to it. Plus, he has the proper hairdo for TV anyway. It is a perfect fit.



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Voxel
 





Originally posted by donwhite
As just one of the many pro-slavery compromises made in 1787 by the Founding Fathers, they agreed to change the unicameral legislature of the earlier Articles of Confederation under which we had fought and won the Revolutionary War, to a bicameral legislature. The upper chamber of the new legislature - reminiscent both of the British House of Lords and the classic Roman Republic - was denominated the Senate.


This is a popular lie. The creation of the senate was in response to the creation of a stronger federal government than was outlined under the articles of confederation.



I assume you are referring to my accusatory remark the FFs moved from a UNICAMERAL legislature to a BICAMERAL legislature to CREATE a sinecure for State’s Rights which was then and is now CODE words for State’s WRONGS. I do not know how popular my remark is but I’m pretty sure it is not a lie.

The most significant defect in the Articles was that it had NO executive branch! No PIC. Person In Charge. The Continental Congress served as the Executive and made executive decisions in committee fashion. That defect could have been easily remedied. The SLAVE dependent states saw a golden opportunity and took 200% advantage!

Call it what you may it was SLAVE rights, or rather the RIGHT to own slaves that was the primary motive for the bicameral legislature.

It has also been suggested by some that there were small state versus large state concerns, trying to avoid the stigma of another PRO slavery compromise made by our Founders. But here’s the skinny on that. From the US Con Article 1: “ . . until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”

Large states would have been Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia. Five in all. Small states would have been Rhode Island and Delaware. Two small states. The two states, New Hampshire and Georgia, would be “in between” in my not arbitrary division. The four remaining states, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina and South Carolina would as it happens, be set-off states. The two Carolinas setting off against the two northern states. Slave versus free.

Yes, I know slavery was legal in most states in 1787 - only in Pennsylvania was it not - but it was the basis of the economy only in states south of the Mason-Dixon line.

I cannot see any logical way to support the claim that the Senate was designed to accommodate concerns of small states.

For me, it is impossible to separate SLAVERY from STATES RIGHTS. Therefore I repeat the creation of the senate was a pro slavery compromise calculated to give the slave states a veto over any legislation.




The reason was to ensure that the sovereignty of the states could never be overruled by a tyranny of the masses . . As far as I know, no state ever voted to give the federal government control over what substances may or may not enter a person's body.



If that reason be true, then how can you fit that in with US Con Article VI? “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

I admit that especially in the South most elected state officials routinely violate this provision of the US Con - despite their oath to the contrary - but that remains to be dealt with at another time.




It should take an amendment to the constitution for the federal government to have the power to regulate something not even mentioned in the constitution. Any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the constitution is in the domain of the states. Jon



Wishing it so does not necessarily make it so. If that argument be true, then how can you fit it in with US Con Article 1, Section 8? That part begins with "The Congress shall have power . . " and ends with this "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." See below for the full text of Article 1, Section 8.

US Constitution, Article 1. Section 8. The Congress shall have power
Clause 1. to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and
provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Clause 4. To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
Clause 6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
Clause 7. To establish post offices and post roads;
Clause 8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Clause 9. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
Clause 10. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
Clause 11. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
Clause 12. To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
Clause 13. To provide and maintain a navy;
Clause 14. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Clause 15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
Clause 16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
Clause 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons
as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
E N D


I threw in Section 9 as yet ONE more compromise the Founding Fathers made to SLAVE owning interests. Note that SLAVE or SLAVERY as a word is never mentioned in the US Con and that intentional omission is yet ONE more PRO slave compromise. And etc.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join