Well, if it is an unconstitutional election-appointment combination,
then technicalities *do* count, if only to keep some respect for that
tattered document alive.
I don't care much about that election, and it is big of Ashcroft to
step aside, but the law turns on what you dismiss as mere
"technicalities."
-Declan
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:06:09PM -0500, Ernest Hua wrote:
> Um ... this is a good technical argument, but it does not address
> the basic premise that what the voters wants is what the voters
> should get. There is no question what the voter wants. They
> knew ahead of time that they would be voting for a dead man's wife.
> The appointment may be technically flawed, but for a judge to throw
> this out would require finding a serious problem. Technicality is
> probably not a serious enough problem to go against the electorate.
>
> Ern
>
> -----Original Message-----
> X-Loop: openpgp.net
> From: Jim Burnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 9:13 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Re: A very brief politcal rant
>
>
>
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2000, William H. Geiger III wrote:
> > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 11/08/00
> >
> > at 09:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > >If the citizens of Missouri chose to elect a deceased person as Senator,
> > >I think that's exactly what they should get. Leave the seat empty for
> > >two years.
> >
> > Someone had brought up the Constitutionality of having a dead man on the
> > ballot. The reasoning was that the deceased are no longer legally citizens
> > and therefore do not meet the Constitutional requirements for office.
>
> Even more significant is that a dead man cannot take the oath of office.
>
> If he can't take the oath of office he can't occupy the office. The
> governor only has the power to replace a senatoratorial position if
> the current office holder dies.
>
> Since Carnahan died before he took office, the office remains unfilled. The
>
> governor does not have power to appoint senators willy-nilly. The office
> must
> be held before it can be filled. The correct solution would be to hold a
> special election so that the public has a chance to know who they are voting
> into office. What the democrats are afraid of is that his wife might be
> less fit to hold that office than her husband in some democrat's minds
> (after debates etc).
>
> Here is a question? Would it be vote fraud to run one person's name on the
> ballot and replace him with someone else when he won?
>
> jim
>
> --
> Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of
> himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we
> found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this
> question. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1st Inaugural
>
