Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When Should a Sitting Member of Congress/Senator Running for President Resign?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:06 PM
Original message
Poll question: When Should a Sitting Member of Congress/Senator Running for President Resign?
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 07:08 PM by CorpGovActivist

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. Are there no hard and fast rules about this? Isn't there a time limit? I
really have no clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I would think a couple of things would have to be taken into
consideration.

1. If they resign how does it impact the # of Dems vs Republicans especially with Joe Lieberwhore....there.

2. If a Senator dies, resigns etc...it depends on who the Governer is, if it is a Dem then we are okay. If it is a Rethuglican it's a big problem. I am not sure all States replace Senators the same way.

If those are resolved in our favor then if the Senator is useless to us then he/she might as well resign.

Just my two cents..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:24 PM
Original message
Another bullshit diversionary non-issue.
The should resign if and when they feel like resigning, or when they take their new job, whichever comes first.

Healthcare: important.
Stupid bullshit criminal wars: important.
Global warming catastophe: really important.
Peak Oil: life blood of civilization, important.

When Should a Sitting Member of Congress/Senator Running for President Resign: not important at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 09:33 AM
Response to Original message
6. Their Constituents...
... might disagree with you.

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. But rarely do.
As it is a fake issue raised by the candidates opponents when they have nothing of substance they actually want to discuss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. I'm Asking for Opinions on a Standard...
... to be applied to all, not about a particular candidate.

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. The standard already exists.
A person cannot be a member of congress and a member of the executive branch at the same time.

"no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

That is the standard. It is remarkably clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. That's the Constitutional Minimum...
... hence the outer limit of the poll: 11:59:59 a.m. ET on January 20, 2009.

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Works for me.
Edited on Sun Nov-18-07 12:03 PM by Warren Stupidity
As I said, this diversionary non-issue is used every campaign, typically whenever a Democrat candidate happens to be in the Senate, hardly ever against Republican Senators or Governors, and is part of the Standard Canon of Bullshit for political operatives in search of a diversion. Outside of the Bullshit Media System nobody cares.

edit: appears to work for the vast majority of those who bothered to vote in your poll as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. As a Student of History...
... I bore in mind JFK's approach. He waited until about a month before his swearing-in. I was curious to see if others thought that the standard had changed.

Article I guarantees representation in Congress to the citizens of each state. Absentee representation is a constitutional issue, too - not a diversion.

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. I searched for the constitutional issue of absentee representation
and could not find it. In fact as we have seen recently with Senator Tim Johnson, there is no such Constitutional issue. Showing up is not part of the Constitutional requirements for office.

As a student of history you might be aware that if there are critical votes where presence matters, candidates make themselves present. If you can demonstrate otherwise, please do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Senator Johnson's Illness...
... did indeed raise the issue, politely and quietly.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=johnson+senator+ho...

Constitutional issues are raised by silences as much as by ambiguities and explicit provisions.

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Er - yes lots of noise was made that there was a constitutional issue
mostly from rightwing professional noisemakers, however as there in fact was no constitutional issue regarding incapacitation of senators or some 'right to not have your senator absent', that was all it was. There is no constitutional issue. If you can find one, please do post it.

"Hume, Borger, Cavuto falsely reported Sen. Johnson would be replaced if "incapacitated"
Summary: Several media outlets have reported that if Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD), who recently had brain surgery, were "incapacitated" or "unable to serve in any way," that South Dakota's Republican governor would be responsible for selecting his replacement. However, the U.S. Constitution does not provide for circumstances in which an "incapacitated" senator can be replaced.

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct." The Constitution does not address the ability of a Senator to carry out his or her duties. In contrast, the 25th Amendment deals specifically with "Presidential Disability" and provides a mechanism for people other than the president to determine that the president is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office" and appoint a replacement without the president's permission.

South Dakota state law echoes the 17th Amendment: "Pursuant to the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Governor may fill by temporary appointment, until a special election is held pursuant to this chapter, vacancies in the office of senator in the Senate of the United States."

As USA Today reported on December 14, there exists no legal precedent for declaring a senator unable to serve, and senators have continued to serve in spite of infirmities:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612140003

There is no constitutional issue. There is a lot of false noise generated during campaign cycles as a distraction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. If - God Forbid - Senator Johnson's Health...
... deteriorated to the point that it was clear he would not be able to resume his duties, I suspect a Question of Privilege would have been used by a Democratic Senator: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule02.php

Absenteeism is also addressed here: http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule06.php

Part of that rule reads: "2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave."

These rules are given constitutional effect by Article I, Section 5: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.ar...

"Section 5. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hisownpetard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. If it's a Dem, a year before the election. If it's a Repub, a week before the indictment comes down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. When they announce b/c
there time, energy, and focus will be on campaigning and not on their job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. That is actually funny
The job of Senator or Representative is mostly running around campaigning and fund raising for campaigns and shmoozing in anticipation of fund raising for campaigns. The 'serious work' of being a Senator or Representative, not so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. You make a
good point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-17-07 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. It depends if they are in a state where the governor will appoint a replacement from their own party
Edited on Sat Nov-17-07 08:27 PM by IanDB1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
begin_within Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
8. Bob Dole says: When Bob Dole does what Bob Dole says that Bob Dole will do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
9. I think a case can be made for insisting on resignation when campaigning for another office.
Rather than term limits and some of the more arcane "campaign finance" limits, I've often though that we'd be better off if we were to prohibit any elected or appointed full time official from engaging in any fund-raising activities of any kind while occupying an office of public trust. If only as a "conflict of interest." I'd include ALL kinds of political fund-raising in that prohibition. I'd prohibit a sitting President from engaging in fund-raising, for example. This would also include fund-raising for one's own campaign, either for reelection to the current office or election to another office. Thus, incumbents would be required to authorize a campaign on their behalf - and all their personal appearances would have to be non-monetary (i.e. not associated with passing the collection plate).

The power of the incumbency is too great a temptation for quid pro quos. We've seen politicians campaign for other offices, like the Presidency, with neither an expectation NOR an intention to win - both to accumulate funds which can later be used to exert influence over other politicians - by transferring those funds to the campaigns of others - ot to gain a "national stature" which would enable them to exert similar influence over other politicians. This 'game' is part of what makes them an inbred species ... an interest group in and of themselves. It's part and parcel of the corruption of politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
book_worm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
18. JFK, Goldwater & McGovern didn't resign when they were nominated
Kerry neither. Dole did before he was nominated, but he was an exception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-18-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
21. Whenever the right-wing media tells us it's acceptable!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 25th 2014, 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC