Kennedy's seat: Appointment possible

It's time to put Vicki Kennedy in Teddy's seat and then let's follow through on Teddy's dream - health care for EVERYONE!

Why are they unveiling a picture of Jed Bartlett?

I have an idea. Let's let all those that support free health care for all, PAY for it all. Can I send you my bill?

Satire (I think) from the AZ Conservative:

"Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) says he will sign legislation making the senate seat held by the late Senator Kennedy “hereditary.” “Look, the seat has been held by one Kennedy or another, come Hell or high water, for over 50 years,” Patrick observed. “The people of this state obviously want a Kennedy, need a Kennedy in this position. Making the seat hereditary is the simplest way of guaranteeing this.”

Under the draft legislation, the Massachusetts senate seat would pass to his son Patrick Kennedy. Patrick Kennedy is currently a Democratic member of congress from the State of Rhode Island.

The Governor dismissed charges that having the seat pass to a non-resident was “carpetbagging.” “Senator Kennedy’s son is more native to our state than Hillary Clinton was to New York,” the Governor pointed out. “He was born and raised here. And he has the Kennedy blood.”

Governor Patrick cited Representative Kennedy’s DUI and rehab session as “pretty conclusive proof that this apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree.”"

Let's let all those that support free health care for all, PAY for it all. Can I send you my bill?

Posted by: former Democrat | August 31, 2009 3:39 PM

If we only could have done that for Iraq........can I still send my bill?

I have an idea. Let's let all those that support free health care for all, PAY for it all. Can I send you my bill?

Posted by: former Democrat | August 31, 2009 3:39 PM
------------------------------------------
.

You Wingnut cretins already sent out the bill to taxpayers, it's called the phony Iraq war and tax cuts for the richest 1%, big oil and big corporations.

I have an idea. Let's let all those that support free health care for all, PAY for it all. Can I send you my bill?

Posted by: former Democrat | August 31, 2009 3:39 PM

What free health care????

Public option is not free health care. Are you reading about this or are you just listening to thew lies (ie: death panels, etc.) that the RNc is pumping out.

*********************************
He was born and raised here. And he has the Kennedy blood.”

Governor Patrick cited Representative Kennedy’s DUI and rehab session as “pretty conclusive proof that this apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree.”"
Posted by: Community Organizer | August 31, 2009 3:48 PM
********************************
.

Teresa,
You need to come up with another new post name, we've already got you pegged as the Wingnut sockpuppet version of 'Community Organizer'.

I would suggest that the Repugs should worry about their own problems, but that would be assuming that their whole purpose as a party was to do something other than fearmonger and lie. It's not.

Nevada GOP Rep: Ensign Should Answer Questions About Affair:

"The pressure is growing for John Ensign to break his silence over his affair with a staffer who was his close friend's wife."
.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/nevada_gop_rep_ensign_should_answer_questions_abou.php

South Carolina Lt Governor tells Sanford to Resign:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/26/sc-lt-gov-will-ask-embatt_n_269389.html

BillyR,

As long as I can you the bill for the Soc Security and Medicare Ponzi schemes. Also, would you mind picking up the tab for the Department of Education?

I see the corrupt and filthy Democrats are at their usual shenanigans, changing laws to suit their needs. Sort of like in New Jersey when Sen. Torricelli had to leave the race in October becuase he was getting crushed in the polls because of his corruption problems and the Democraps replaced him with Senile Laughingberg even though laws stated it couldn't be done.
Course, Mark Silva loves Democratic corruption. He thinks it's the greatest thing ev er created! As long as the Democraps get what they want, that's all that matters. Sort of like letting a poor, helpless woman slowly die and drown in a car.

Looks like the Democrats have been hoisted on their own petard. The Massachusetts legislature took away the governor’s power to appoint a Senator in the case of a vacancy during Romney’s term, and the U.S. Constitution requires a special election in the absence of that power. That means they have to change the law back before they can appoint a replacement.
.
There’s a lesson to be learned in this mess somewhere. Maybe it’s the lesson that one shouldn’t so openly tamper with laws out of partisan considerations. (Senate Democrats should have learned that one with regard to their cloture / anti-filibuster rules.)

Also, would you mind picking up the tab for the Department of Education?

Posted by: Terry | August 31, 2009 5:28 PM
*********************************
.

I can understand why Repugs, like Trickledown Boy here, would have a problem with the Dept of Education.

Repugs want to keep the mind numbingly stupid low and middle income dittoheads who make up their base mind - stupid, lest they discover that they're being screwed by the tax cuts for the rich Repug "leadership" that they blindly support.
.
http://www.livescience.com/history/top10_intelligent_designs.html

Any change in the MA law on senatorial succession would be an Ex Post Facto law and therefore illegal under Article I of the U.S. Constitution which bans such after-the-fact legislation. If MA lawmakers go ahead, court challenges could negate any selection until well after a special election. And anyway, whatever happened to democracy and letting (gasp) the people choose?

As long as I can you the bill for the Soc Security and Medicare Ponzi schemes. Also, would you mind picking up the tab for the Department of Education?

Posted by: Terry | August 31, 2009 5:28 PM

Sure Terry.......I know as a "great American" as yourself.......there is no need to contribute to America. Tell me how mom and dad like those medi bennies?

* * * * *
Posted by: McKinley | August 31, 2009 7:22 PM
.
Uh, nope. A law isn't “ex post facto” unless it: (1) is retroactive; (2) changes the criminal law; and (3) is more disadvantageous to one accused of crime than under the prior law by making innocent acts crimes, making crimes aggravated, increasing punishment, or altering the rules of evidence to permit conviction on less or different evidence. A change in an election law doesn’t do anything to the law of crimes, and it will not operate retroactively. Thus, Massachusetts can freely change their laws on the subject of interim appointments without fear of the ex post facto prohibition.

Even more so, John W.: Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution applies to the U.S. Congress (Section 9 is titled, "Limitations on Congress." So Congress cannot pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws (not that the measure under discussion is either one) but the Constitution is silent with respect to what the Massachusetts legislature can do.

The idiots that have put Kennedys in office all these many years, deserve everything they get. There must be something in the water in order for the people to act so crazy. The Kennedys
have always acted on their own interests first. To think otherwise is simply foolhardy.

The idiots that have put Kennedys in office all these many years, deserve everything they get. There must be something in the water in order for the people to act so crazy.
Posted by: Paul | August 31, 2009 9:10 PM
*****************************
.

The Americans who have put Kennedy's in office all of these years are proud of the service that they provided to our country, thus the reason why they were reelected so often.

Go back to Alabama and crawl under your rock, Paulie.

* * * * *
Posted by: DaveB | August 31, 2009 9:08 PM
.
You are correct in stating that Article I, Section 9 doesn’t impose any restraints on state legislatures, but that doesn’t mean the Constitution is silent on the subject. The federal Constitution contains TWO prohibitions against ex post facto laws, and Article I, Section 9 is only one of them. Article I, Section 10 is the other one - and it explicitly prohibits STATES from passing ex post facto laws.

Deval Patrick is another proud creation of the School of Platitude Campaigning by Obama's Rasputin Axlerod

Patrick's approval rating in MA is right around 0% as he was quickly revealed to be incompetent at actually holding office as opposed to running for it.

Gee.. who is that like?

BillyR,

Considering mom and dad paid into the ponzi scheme, they deserved to get some of their money back.

Anti Trickled On JOhn E,

IIf you can expalin why tax money needs to go to the feds and then have the feds, in thier bureaucratic wisdom, send the money back out to the "appropriate" school districts.

Considering mom and dad paid into the ponzi scheme, they deserved to get some of their money back.
Posted by: Terry | August 31, 2009 9:59 PM

Wouldn't really be a Ponzi scheme then would it?

Here is an example of what your mom and dad got for the ponzi scheme. If born in 1944 and started work at 21 in 1965, they have paid in to the "ponzi scheme" approximately 65K in their life time. Typically according to statistics, they will recieve 174K in lifetime benifits. So that means they will recieve 110K more in benefits than they have paid in. Not bad for a "ponzi scheme".

Oops, John W., didn't read far enough.

Even so, I'd have to say that it would be exceedingly crass, even for politicians, to have passed a law in 2004 to prevent a Republican governor from possibly appointing a Republican successor to John Kerry, were he to be elected president, and then to change it back in 2009, to prevent the electorate from possibly electing a Republican successor to Ted Kennedy. Exceedingly crass, but, having lived in Illinois, not surprising.

Social Security is a phantom retirement plan.

When Social Security was challeneged at the Surpreme Court in the 1930s, the govt could not justify it on the basis of an insurance program because it had no Constitutional authority to run such a system.

Instead it told the court that the Social Security was merely a label put onto a policy of taxation and government payments.

Maybe later they amended it to have the illusion of it being a trust fund, but it is not a trust fund.

The way it works is the people who pay tax now are paying the benefits to the people who are receiving it now.

All the money that people who are sending to it now, instead of that money being put aside, it's given to the receivers and any surplus is then squandered by the current years abusive spending.

In 1950 the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16-to-one

Because of Birth Control and Abortion the ratio now is 3.3-to-one, and within 40 years it will be 2-to-1

This is a dangerous ponzi scheme, and the quicker this "system" is abolished the better.

You Wingnut cretins already sent out the bill to taxpayers, it's called the phony Iraq war and tax cuts for the richest 1%, big oil and big corporations.

Posted by: Mick Hendrix | August 31, 2009 4:00 PM

Mick - it's time to go get the updated talking points from Media Matters. Along with being inaccurate, these are outdated.

* * * * *
Posted by: DaveB | September 1, 2009 8:30 AM
.
I totally agree with you. Laws like that have a way of coming home to roost. While Democrats were the Senate minority, the Republicans offered to do away with the cloture rule to cut off debate with 60 votes. Had the Democrats taken them up on this offer, they wouldn’t now be in the pickle they are in, scrambling for the 60th vote. The combination of the Senate rule and Massachusetts’ non-appointment now leaves them having to wait until January for that 60th vote.

* * * * *
Posted by: bill r. | September 1, 2009 8:10 AM
.
A Ponzi scheme isn’t bad because it pays people while the money is coming in. It’s bad because the late-comers eventually don’t get back what they put into it - while being defrauded into believing they will. You and Terry’s parents may be getting more than your money’s worth out of Social Security. That’s probably true of most people in middle age right now. But it is equally certain that those retiring a generation from now won’t get a wet noodle from the mess.
.
It is projected that, by 2017, Social Security contributions will no longer pay the obligations, thereby requiring the government to start retiring the bonds used to displace the money taken for other purposes. By 2040, Social Security will be bankrupt, and those in their early working years today will get nothing for all their contributions - unless something drastic is done. Moreover, the government revises their estimates from time to time, and the dates keep getting closer and closer.
.
Now, you might not care about this situation - but that says more about your short-sightedness (a symptom of being a Democrat) than it does about whether the whole plan is a Ponzi Scheme. (And I thought you guys were supposed to be about looking after other people.)

John W,

As usual, well done