If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

BUT WHEN THE WINNER WAS A DEMOCRAT FROM NY-23, HE WAS SEATED BEFORE THE VOTE WAS COUNTED

by JB Williams, © 2010

JB Williams, in his home-office

(Feb. 3, 2010) — On January 19, 2010, Republican Scott Brown was duly elected by the people of Massachusetts as their new Senator. He was to fill a seat held by Teddy Kennedy (D) for nearly fifty years, a seat currently held by temporary appointee Paul Kirk (D).

According to the US Constitution and Massachusetts law, Brown should have been sworn in immediately following election night and assumed the responsibilities of the office the following morning.

Media cameras followed Brown to DC less than 48 hours after the election, and most people assumed that he arrived in DC to be sworn into office. But as of today, and reportedly until February 11, 2010, Brown remains out of his elected office and Kirk continues to cast important votes which Brown should be casting.

Kirk has cast at least seventeen illegal votes since Brown was elected to that seat on January 19.

On January 26, a week after Brown was elected to the senate seat Kirk still occupies, Kirk cast a NAY vote against a bill intended to rescind $120 billion in Federal spending by consolidating duplicative government programs, cutting wasteful Washington spending, and returning billions of dollars of unspent money. That bill failed by a 46-48 vote. Had Brown been in that seat, the outcome of that vote would have very likely been different.

On January 28, Kirk cast a NAY vote on a bill intended to establish a Commission on Congressional Budgetary Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies. That bill passed, but only by a 51-49 margin.

Also on the 28th, Kirk cast a vote AGAINST reducing the deficit by establishing five-year discretionary spending caps; FOR Ben S. Bernanke, of New Jersey, to be Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years; and Kirk was the 60th vote in favor of raising the US debt ceiling to $14 trillion, allowing the Obama administration to increase the American people’s national debt by 40% in just one year.

Yet, not a single word from Scott Brown, or from RNC headquarters.

Just yesterday, the New York Times reported:  The president denied that the special election of Scott Brown (R) for an open Massachusetts Senate seat — which ended Democrats’ 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority in the chamber — means the end of his overhaul initiative.  Obama said, “Suddenly everybody says, ‘Oh no, it’s over,'” adding, “Well, no, it’s not over. We just have to make sure that we move methodically and that the American people understand what’s in the [reform] bill.” (Baker, New York Times, Feb. 3, 2010)

Speaking to supporters in New Hampshire, Obama continued to promote health care reform by pledging to “punch it through” Congress.

I think we can see why Scott Brown has not yet been seated in the chair he was elected to fill over two weeks ago. How this is happening may be of more interest.…

With both Brown and the GOP dead silent on the matter of leaving temporary appointee Kirk in office long enough to cast whatever votes he is to cast before vacating the office on February 11, it is clear that Kirk remains in the seat with the blessings of Brown and the GOP.

Kirk has been allowed to remain in Brown’s senate seat for 23 days into Brown’s term and neither Brown nor the GOP seems to have any problem with that at all.

Massachusetts voters have been equally silent on the matter, and so has the lame-stream press.

Nobody seems the least concerned with the fact that Scott Brown will be kept out of his rightful seat in the Senate for 23 days into his official term while Kirk casts illegal vote after illegal vote, presumably at odds with how Brown would have voted had he been properly sworn in and seated upon the conclusion of the special election on January 19.

Why, then, was a special election held on January 19?  Is this how our representative republic runs now?

If it is, then we no longer have a representative republic governed by laws or the law of the land, the US Constitution.

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I don’t mean to “nit pick” but the United States is not now, nor has it ever been,
    a “Democracy”. The term best describing our form of government is “Republic”.

    ——————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: While what you say is correct in the context of the question of what form of government we have; your application of such a comment to the article is unwarranted, because the title of the article (which I added to JB’s piece) refers to manner of selecting a US Senator as it is done today, by popular vote, and not to the form of government called a Democracy; because the term can be used both properly and in a general sense.