New Constitutional Amendment?

myp · Jan 25, 2009

Senator Feingold is proposing a new Constitutional amendment that would change the way in which replacements for Senators who have resigned are picked. Currently, the Governor of the state has the power to appoint someone with the approval of the Senate, but Feingold is advocating for a special election to be held in that case. The proposal comes in light of the Blagojevich scandal and the fact that Caroline Kennedy was not chosen as Hilary Clinton's replacement.

So my question is, do we need it?

Personally, I think it would be a good idea if it is coordinated in the right way so that the people have the power to select the replacement. One possible problem may be lack of turnout at the elections, in which case this would not be a good idea.

source: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/25/senator-end-blagojevich-type-senate-appointments/

The Parakeet · Jan 25, 2009

I think the principal is at least right. There was a lot of worrying about this in my home state. A lot of people assume that when Byrd dies, Governor Manchin will appoint himself to the seat and have a good run.

Appointing a senator just doesn't seem right. The appointee could end up being there for years and it's a really important seat. There's no reason that the governor couldn't appoint someone as interim senator. The people could then have an election to pick the real senator in a month or two (with the interim possibly having a chance to prove themselves or fail epically).

omej · Jan 25, 2009

Special elections are good but they take time to setup. I think the amendment should require a certain person designated as the backup until the election is held. It could easily be from the state legislature or even the lieutenant governor.

websuperstar · Feb 11, 2009

The original consitutional amendments were put in place for a reason and they should not be changed for any reason. the founding farthers knew what they were doing and if they were here today to see how its been blown so out of proportion then they'd be disgraced. Personally I think a good 99% of politicians are garbage. Ron Paul is one of the only politicians in America who reads all bills. that is why he should really be the president. He would pull America out of the shit and in 3 and a half years he wouldn't make a bad decision like Obama is likely to.

The Parakeet · Feb 11, 2009

They wrote an amendment process into the Constitution for a reason. We made a lot of good amendments (and only one really bad one...which was canceled out by another amendment). Besides Congress isn't really the one who necessarily amends the Constitution.

Any real reason why you would be against this particular one...besides the fact that Ron Paul is a god who would beat up Chuck Norris with one hand while saving a clutch of baby parakeets with the other.

New Constitutional Amendment?

myp

The Parakeet

omej

websuperstar

The Parakeet

Similar threads