Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Massachusetts To Short Circuit Electoral Process

Massachusetts Democrats once again are attempting to short circuit the electoral process there. In 2004, when it seemed likely that John Kerry (D, MA) would win the election for the presidency, the Democratic dominated legislature feared that the then Republican governor, Mitt Romney, would appoint a Republican to the seat. This was the original law in Massachusetts.

So, the legislature decided that a change in the law was necessary. So, they changed the law to one where in an emergency election would be held within 120 days of the vacancy occurring. Last year, when Ted Kennedy died, Democrats again altered their state's law from that direct election within 120 days of the vacancy occurring back to one in which the Governor appoints a temporary Senator. Only then, would there be an election in due course to fill the vacancy.

The Democrats that control the legislature as well as the administrative portion of state government, because they realized that the "interim" Senator would be the 60th vote that would break the deadlock on their plan to seize control of the nation's health care system. Now, there is a very real possibility that this seat will go to a Republican, the Democrats who control the state's administrative machinery are planning to postpone the swearing in of Scott Brown (R) until after the final passage of the bill, on the grounds that he has openly stated that he would vote against the measure.

Additionally, his strong showing against Martha Coakley (D), who is the Attorney General of Massachusetts, and has been running on a referendum on Mr. Obama's presidency and against the agenda that has been presented by the Democrats in Congress as well. Oddly enough, the people of Massachusetts, who have the first state mandated/run health care industry are strongly against passage of the bills presently before Congress. In one recent poll, 47% oppose the health care bill to only 41% who express support for it, this is nearly unheard of in a blue/blue state like Massachusetts.

No comments: