We can't make Joe go, and anyway, he isn't going anywhere
I got an email today from someone asking if I
there was any provision of the Connecticut constitution that would enable us to
get rid of Joe Lieberman. I answered in the negative, without reviewing the
Connecticut constitution, because I'm reasonably certain that even if there were
such a provision, it would violate the federal
constitution.
A few minutes ago my wife told me that Keith Olbermann had something on his show about Lieberman violating the Connecticut constitution. A friend called her to tell her about it. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, we couldn't watch it, so I have no idea what he was talking about.
It did lead me to quickly skim the Connecticut constitution, and unless there's something buried deep down in there, I couldn't find anything that remotely fits the bill.
For a number of reasons, I don't think a recall provision, even if we had one, would be constitutional. Federal office holders hold their offices pursuant to federal law. The states can't pass laws that would impair the right of a duly elected federal officeholder from holding his or her office. I very much doubt that, absent an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that Congress could provide for recall elections of federal office holders. The closest case that comes to mind is the term limits issue as it applies to members of Congress. (U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al. v. THORNTON et al.)
Joe deserves to lose his job, but it would be bad public policy, in my opinion, to allow for recall of U.S. Senators. Given the Senate's abdication of its constitutional role in the run up to Iraq, this quote from the Federalist Papers (No. 63) may merely seem outdated (or, as our attorney general might say, quaint), but it summarizes nicely part of the theory behind the Senate's longer terms:
[S]uch an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
In theory, at least, the longer Senate terms allow Senators to feel less pressured by transient popular impulses. Put crudely, they have time to breathe between elections.
Connecticut is going to have to live with this embarrassment for another six years. He will not switch parties. Here's why:
1. If he switched, the Senate would remain under Democratic control.
2. Given 1, if he switched, Harry Reid would relieve him of his chairmanship of the Government Affairs Committee. In fact, the act of switching would immediately relieve him of his chairmanship without Reid having to act. He would be making himself a member of the minority.
3. Given 1 and 2, Bush would not want Lieberman to switch, because it would mean he would be subjected to meaningful government oversight on Katrina and "homeland security" issues. Bush would rather his favorite "Democrat" stay a "Democrat" to avoid that possibility.
4. There is a train wreck coming in 2008 for the Republicans in the Senate. If Lieberman switched he would find himself really high and dry for the final four years of his political career.
If Joe was going to emulate his fellow Nutmegger, Benedict Arnold, he had to do it at the beginning of the session. It's too late now. If he does go, it would be good riddance and proof positive that we were right about him being a lying hypocrite, though there are those in the media who would undoubtedly spin it as proof that there is no room for centrists in the Democratic party.
At some point the Democrats have to call his bluff.
A few minutes ago my wife told me that Keith Olbermann had something on his show about Lieberman violating the Connecticut constitution. A friend called her to tell her about it. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, we couldn't watch it, so I have no idea what he was talking about.
It did lead me to quickly skim the Connecticut constitution, and unless there's something buried deep down in there, I couldn't find anything that remotely fits the bill.
For a number of reasons, I don't think a recall provision, even if we had one, would be constitutional. Federal office holders hold their offices pursuant to federal law. The states can't pass laws that would impair the right of a duly elected federal officeholder from holding his or her office. I very much doubt that, absent an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that Congress could provide for recall elections of federal office holders. The closest case that comes to mind is the term limits issue as it applies to members of Congress. (U. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., et al. v. THORNTON et al.)
Joe deserves to lose his job, but it would be bad public policy, in my opinion, to allow for recall of U.S. Senators. Given the Senate's abdication of its constitutional role in the run up to Iraq, this quote from the Federalist Papers (No. 63) may merely seem outdated (or, as our attorney general might say, quaint), but it summarizes nicely part of the theory behind the Senate's longer terms:
[S]uch an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
In theory, at least, the longer Senate terms allow Senators to feel less pressured by transient popular impulses. Put crudely, they have time to breathe between elections.
Connecticut is going to have to live with this embarrassment for another six years. He will not switch parties. Here's why:
1. If he switched, the Senate would remain under Democratic control.
2. Given 1, if he switched, Harry Reid would relieve him of his chairmanship of the Government Affairs Committee. In fact, the act of switching would immediately relieve him of his chairmanship without Reid having to act. He would be making himself a member of the minority.
3. Given 1 and 2, Bush would not want Lieberman to switch, because it would mean he would be subjected to meaningful government oversight on Katrina and "homeland security" issues. Bush would rather his favorite "Democrat" stay a "Democrat" to avoid that possibility.
4. There is a train wreck coming in 2008 for the Republicans in the Senate. If Lieberman switched he would find himself really high and dry for the final four years of his political career.
If Joe was going to emulate his fellow Nutmegger, Benedict Arnold, he had to do it at the beginning of the session. It's too late now. If he does go, it would be good riddance and proof positive that we were right about him being a lying hypocrite, though there are those in the media who would undoubtedly spin it as proof that there is no room for centrists in the Democratic party.
At some point the Democrats have to call his bluff.
Posted: Friday - February 23, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Quick Links
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:18 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Apr 17, 2007 07:18 PM