Will Family Member Fill Kennedy's Shoes?
Shared via AddThis
Check out the link above for a short video from ABC news that prefaces this blog post.
With the death of Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, there has been a great deal of discussion about his now vacated seat in the U. S. Senate. As the law is now written, there must be a special election to replace him. Until that election his seat will be vacant. This is not normal for states, as normal protocol gives the governor of the affected state the power to immediately appoint a replacement until a new Senator can be elected. In 2004, the 90% Democrat controlled Massachusetts legislature voted in the change that is now law to prevent then Republican governor Mitt Romney (remember him?)from appointing a republican replacement should Senator John Kerry (who was the Dems nominee for president) need to vacate his seat.
Fast forward to the present, and there is a Democratic governor in place, and what was Senator Kennedy's vital vote for Healthcare Reform is now in jeopardy. So to suit their present needs, the Democratic Party, fearing they may need that vote, is asking the Massachusetts legislature (still holding a 90/10 advantage of dems over republicans) to change the law back.
Stepping back from your views, whatever they may be, about the importance of HealthCare Reform in this country - and the consensus - no matter the ideas each side has for fixing the problem, how does this political maneuver feel to you. Is this fair? Does it seem a little too convenient? Or should the minority just learn to grin and bear it until they get enough votes to do what they want?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While ethically, this issue could be argued either way, it would be legal for the Massachusetts legislature to change the law back. The fact that there is a democratic majority in the legislature means (or at least SHOULD mean) that the majority of the residents in Massachusetts is democratic. Therefore, the majority of the people in Massachusetts should, theoretically, agree with the decisions of the democratic legislature. Now that doesn't mean that they will, but that's why we have such frequent elections for our representatives.
ReplyDeleteThat said, and remaining consistent with an "ideal republic system," yes it is pretty convenient for the democrats, but it is fair and the only thing the minority can do is to grin and bear it until they get enough votes to do what they want. Individual morals, which are relative and unique to each person, are really the only thing that would conflict with this kind of political maneuver. Personally, I think it's completely fair. However, if the majority of people didn't agree with my opinion, then, in an election, they would win. That's how the system works. If it just so happens that a convenience presents itself, then cool.
Not allowing the democratic party to change the law if they wanted to would be more unethical and, in my opinion, illegal, than them wanting to change the law back. Unless a federal law conflicts with this proceeding, then all power to them. If it were me in their position, I'd do it too.
Since the law would simply be to "suit their present needs"I personally do not think it is fair. The law was changed when it was convenient for the democratic party and it is unethical to go back and say "oh hey wait a minute, now that this law gets in the way of what we want, lets change it back." However, that is the name of the game in politics. At the same time I agree with Zach when he says it would be unethical to not allow the law to be changed back. If majority rules, you can't deny it.
ReplyDeletePolitics is a game. The Republican will change the law for their benefit and the Democrats will change the law for their benefit too.
ReplyDeleteMy solution to this problem is to let the people decide. Democracy is all about the people. If the majority are much greater than the minority, then let the majority have it. To me 90/10 difference is good enough to change law. samuel