Feingold Calls for Constitutional Change to Senate Appointment Following Gregg Nomination

Sen. Russ Feingold calls the deal to replace Sen. Judd Gregg with a Republican "alarmingly undemocratic."

Quote:Tuesday, February 03, 2009

One Democratic senator complained Tuesday about the deal made between Republican New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and the Democratic governor naming his replacement in the Senate, calling it "alarmingly undemocratic."

Sen. Russ Feingold D-Wis., adding that he thinks Gregg, President Obama's choice for commerce secretary, is "well qualified" for the post but "the apparent behind-the-scenes deal-making that went on to determine who will fill Sen. Gregg's vacancy is alarmingly undemocratic.

"Once again, Americans will be represented in the Senate for nearly two years by someone they had no hand in electing," Feingold said.

Following the controversial appointment last month of Roland Burris to be the Illinois senator replacing President Obama in his vacated seat, Feingold proposed a constitutional amendment to require Senate vacancies be filled by popular election rather than by gubernatorial appointment. He repeated the call Tuesday.

"As the number of senators appointed to their seats continues to rise, its increasingly clear that we need to fix this constitutional anachronism. It is time to pass a constitutional amendment to end appointments by governors and the political gamesmanship they encourage," he said.

Obama announced Tuesday that Gregg would become his nominee as commerce secretary. Barring a major revelation, Gregg should have no problem getting confirmed.

But his departure sets up a vacancy in the Senate, which caucuses with a 58-41 Democratic advantage. The Minnesota Senate seat dispute still in the courts.

If New Hampshire Democratic Gov. John Lynch were to replace Gregg with a Democrat, and Al Franken wins the disputed Minnesota race, then Democrats would have a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority.

Gregg said he refused to accept the post if that happened, and won assurances from Lynch that a Republican would be named to succeed him. Former Gregg aide Bonnie Newman is expected to be appointed to Gregg's seat.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100...ing-gregg/

Suppose the procedure were that a Senator named in writing his choice for the person to replace him/her. Then if the Senator died or resigned to accept a higher position (but not, obiously, if removed for malfeasance or other reason involving culpability), the named replacement took over.

Alternatively, suppose the Senator could name three people, and the governor (or legislature or whomever the state determined appropriate) would select from those three names.

Either of these would seem to come closer to the ideal of having the will of the people, as expressed in the election, prevail over the full term.

Voting by majority rule is inherently immoral and undemocratic. Our whole voting system is messed up. Why is he b*tching about appointments?

We're not a friggin' democracy anyway. And it's absurd to say the voters have no say in who gets appointed. They vote for the Gov. In this case a deal is refreshingly bi-partisan...more democratic than much of what goes on. Besides, I like the state officials being involved in who goes to congress.

If he rasied an equally large stink over Obama's replacement, or Hillary's replacement being undemocratic, then I'm okay with the complaint...

otherwise, he's a hack

(02-03-2009 04:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If he rasied an equally large stink over Obama's replacement, or Hillary's replacement being undemocratic, then I'm okay with the complaint...

otherwise, he's a hack

Excellent point.

(02-03-2009 04:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If he rasied an equally large stink over Obama's replacement, or Hillary's replacement being undemocratic, then I'm okay with the complaint...

otherwise, he's a hack

In the man's defense, he started bitching about these appointments a little while back. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/f...dment.html

While they're at it, they may as well put in a recall referendum for those politicians who the people feel are too stupid to be allowed in office. We should be able to call an election to vote the b@st@rds out if we want. Any and all of 'em, if necessary...

Why not make it a government that is truly representative of the people's will?

Excuse me, Senator Feingold, but do you really want to REPEAL the 17th Amendment? Good luck getting that through Congress and Ratification of the States. Its been working since 1913. I'm calling "States Rights" on this issue.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

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.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

(02-03-2009 10:20 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Excuse me, Senator Feingold, but do you really want to REPEAL the 17th Amendment? Good luck getting that through Congress and Ratification of the States. Its been working since 1913. I'm calling "States Rights" on this issue.

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

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.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."

Exactly. How a state chooses to select a congressman is up to the states. I folks is a particular state don't like the procedure in their state....change how it is done. It's not the Feds job.

I thought we had already all agreed that the Constitution does not matter whatsoever to the government of this nation -- and has not for some time now.

(02-03-2009 03:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  One Democratic senator complained Tuesday about the deal made between Republican New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and the Democratic governor naming his replacement in the Senate, calling it "alarmingly undemocratic."

It's alarmingly undemocratic to have open union votes but the democrats don't seem to mind.