« Will This Be In Al Gore’s Next Speech? | Home | Red State Sell-Out or Caught Red Handed? »
Massachusetts Dems Couldn’t Care Less About The Will of The People
By Matt Margolis | June 26, 2004
Massachusetts Democrats are by far the most stupid and corrupt bunch I have ever seen. Humoring the possibility that John Kerry might win the election in November, Massachusetts lawmakers are pushing through a bill that would change Massachusetts state law so that in the event of a vacancy, the governor would not appoint a replacement to complete the remainder of the term.
It’s just a coincidence that this bill has come up now, during an election year when a Senator from Massachusetts is running for President.
Just a coincidence.
My governor, Mitt Romney says, “If you establish a special election … based on a shotgun basis … then you’re not creating a special election. You’re creating a deal for a friend,”
For those unfamiliar with this state, we’re a state full of shady deals and favors and rich Democrats hungry to increase their power.
The Romney administration claims the bill is an attempt by Democrats to clear the way for well-funded congressmen to run for Senate. Democrats fear Romney will appoint a Republican who will have an unfair edge in 2006.
The bill moved to the House for debate. Forty-eight other states allow the governor to appoint a replacement to a Senate seat. Alaska recently allowed a special election without an interim appointment.
Forty-eight other states have the same rule – yet Massachusetts is suddenly too good for it.
Perhaps the most disturbing of this is the pretend reasons Democrats in this state are giving for why they want this bill.
State Senate president Robert E. Travaglini:
“This is an elected position, not an appointed position, and there’s been a process that’s evolved over a period of time where I believe the people should vote and voice their opinions in situations of significance,”
Senator Brian Joyce (D-Milton):
“Let the people vote. We heard that over and over and over, and still over again, recently from the executive branch during the gay marriage debate. What could be more democratic than let the people vote?”
I’m sorry, but the last thing the Democrats in power in Massachusetts care about is the will of the people. It is insulting for any of them to imply that the will of the people has even an iota of influence in their push for this bill. As a Massachusetts voter I can testify that my will, and the will of the majority of voters has been repeatedly ignored by the legislature of the state.
Back in November or 2002, myself and 68 percent of the Massachusetts voters approved English immersion in schools and getting rid of bilingual education. Massachusetts legislators who opposed the bill tried to water down the measure by attaching five bilingual education measures to the 2004 state budget. Romney vetoed the measures, but he Massachusetts Legislature overrode them.
Very democratic huh?
Nor was this the first time the legislature ignored the will of their constituents. Massachusetts voters have overwhelmingly supported tax rollbacks, only to have the legislature raise taxes. Back in 1998, Massachusetts passed clean elections laws, with the hope of reforming the electoral process. Seeing the future threat of increase competition to defend their seats, the Massachusetts Legislature gutted the law, claiming the voters didn’t understand what they had voted for.
Massachusetts Democrats could care less about the will the people - anyone who believes that they do is a fool. Even though John Kerry won’t win in November, this bill will still protect the Democrats hold on their seats in the U.S. Senate for another potential vacancy. Let’s face it; Ted Kennedy’s liver isn’t going last forever. A procedural law that has been in place for years is only changed for a politically motivated reason. If the will of the people was really the issue, the law would have been changed years ago.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
June 27th, 2004 at 12:12 am
Obviously this is politically motivated, its an unashamed attempt to create a safety net for Democrats in the Senate. I’m not particularly angered by it, but I’m a Massachusetts Democrat so go figure. Thank you for bringing up the those other examples, its clear that Massachusetts needs much greater opposition in its legislature from other parties. The one party state is inherently corrupt.
June 27th, 2004 at 12:57 pm
This whole voting for Senators malarkey was a bad thing from the git-go.
June 29th, 2004 at 8:02 am
Matt: Not to rain on the parade, but your fellow Taxxachusteens would probably elect another lefty even after the appointment term ended.
June 29th, 2004 at 9:17 am
I shudder to think what kind of place we would now be living in had O’Brien won the corner office. Yikes.
One thing is 110% certain - this issue of voting for a replacement senator vs. appointment of an interim senator would be non-existent.
Anyone who argues this is being done for any reason other than a poilitcal power grab is just plain full of it.
Much like Tommy Taxes Finneran during the debate over voting on a marriage amendment (and I paraphrase), “We are the stewards of the people.” Yeah, sure.
Up yours, Tom.
June 29th, 2004 at 5:11 pm
Amendment XVII has been a bust from the beginning. The Constitution provided that the States appoint through their legislature 2 Senators. Why? So that the Senators could represent the best interest of the State as an entity, and could also provide a counter weight to that of the House, the voice of the people. By ratifying the XVII amendment, which of course has remained skeptical since day one, they removed the voice of the state and forced the will of the people as a nation upon the very institution that the Constitution sought to protect, the State. You can see just by looking around you what this Amendment has provided us, an overreaching federal government that has stolen the power from the States. The framers of the Constitution consistently address the checks and balances and separation of powers throughout the Constitution. Not until we the people got our grubby little mitts on it did we remove those very barriers that the framers saw fit to put up. The repeal of the XVII Amendment would go a long way in fixing all that is broke in this country.
June 29th, 2004 at 5:35 pm
The Federalists won out over the anti-federalists, the Articles of Confederation didn’t work, and the Confederacy proved what damage too stong state’s rights could do. Not to mention times change and it was becoming clear that people deserved power in the Senate rather than an odd less democratic more republican setup.
June 29th, 2004 at 8:04 pm
Miles, and look what we got now. A bunch of lifers. It shouldn’t be a profession. And now because the people (House and Senate) make all the rules, they can do what they want and there is nobody to say no.
Times Change, this is correct, so maybe we should scrap the Bible and adopt the Koran? Maybe we should scrap our paycheck for food stamps?
I happen to like change. I enjoy change, but there are times when change can be bad and I believe that this amendment has proven to be just that.
June 29th, 2004 at 9:02 pm
Out of curiosity, what does the Bible and the Koran have to do with anything?
I live on the other side of the country, so I dunno much about this Mass. dealey.
June 29th, 2004 at 9:20 pm
Kyle, it has nothing to do with the 17th Amendment and everything to do with my point that change is not always a good thing.
June 29th, 2004 at 11:22 pm
But, well, it makes no sense. Those are two entirely different religions. Why would they swap holy books? That’s not change, that’s…hell, it doesn’t make any sense at ALL.
That’s like saying “What if the Earth and Mars switched places! Change is bad!”
Wait, no, even that gem of idiocy I just made makes more sense.
June 29th, 2004 at 11:26 pm
Congress is suppose to make all the laws and the President has the power to veto them. And if the people find the a Senator’s actions poor they can vote them out of office rather than a state legislature keep them for poltical reasons.
What lifers do you speak of? Even before welfare reform the majority of people using AFDC or Food Stamps were single mothers with less than 3 children and were on it for less than 2 years.
“A General Accounting Office summary of over 100 studies found that welfare does not significantly reduce the desire to work” and usually the below poverty line payments given in both programs are strong incentive for those people to find work rather than starve to death.
As for change, well you can blame science and in turn a more complex society. Why you mention the Koran I have no idea and whatever your implying with it is irrelevent. The 17th ammendment was passed in the height of the Proggressive era, the corruption and weakened democracy of the Gilded Age gave impetus for a strong need for reform.
June 30th, 2004 at 9:53 am
Ok, back the truck up. First my Koran/Bible analogy was just that, and it was meant to be that ridiculous to prove the point. Why you are bringing up welfare is absolutely beyond me. That is irrelevant to not only the 17th amendment but every comment so far. Talk about straying off the subject.
So, now that we have both the House and the Senate elected by the people, who represents the states?
I like the way that both of you are focusing on my analogy rather than on the fact that the 17th Amendment was and still is a terrible idea. The States have no power and cannot provide any type of safe guard against their well being regarding legislation.
Let us also look at why the Senate has only 2 members from each state. This was done so that the smaller or less populous states would have equal voice when dealing with the legislation that he House had passed. By electing these members, they are no longer representing the State, they are representing their constituents. So, you have 2 Senators from North Dakota and 2 from California. How could a Senator from California actually act in the best interest of their constituents? They can’t, there are simply too many people for them to be in touch with. Representatives are distributed based up on the population, giving an equal voice for the people.
BTW, the 17th Amendment was introduced because of the expansion of the nation and the difficulty that those new States such as Oregon had in appointing their Senators and actually getting them to the Senate. As for the Gilded Age and corruption why would wealth and corruption cause a change in the Constitution? Not sure I see the correlation there. If anything this law would make it easier for the rich to gain power through the electoral process than it would through the States appointing them in their own best interest.
June 30th, 2004 at 3:24 pm
You mentioned welfare in the first place buddy and I felt a need to cure your ignorance about it.
Well we found slavery fairly corrupt, and the Constitution was amended to get rid of it. Not everything the Founders intended was perfect or suited for future generations, and thats why they made sure there was a way to amend the Constitution. I think your point can be argued though, but I find this almost contradictory to the conservative opinion of late about our judicial system. State legislatures selecting senators is more republican than democratic just as our judicial system is, if majority of people disagree with their actions they have no power to get rid of them. The Progressive era also brought about the recall, referendum, and initative and most states already had laws where people were electing senators.
June 30th, 2004 at 6:11 pm
Miles, where and when did I mention welfare? I think you are a bit mistaken. I just reread all my comments and certainly did not mention welfare. And I am surely not ignorant about it, but thanks for assuming based upon a conversation that we never had.
Slavery was never mandated, guaranteed or supported by the Constitution, at least not the one that I read. However they did see fit to write an Amendment to abolish it and I believe this was a great thing, supported by the Republicans I might add.
Yes, they certainly did make a way to amend it and that was a great foresight, but this amendment changes the very foundation of the balance of power and how that power is established.
and your point is?
As for if the people don’t approve of their actions, they certainly can do something about it, they can elect different State Legislators. As for most states having this law, I don’t believe that is an accurate statement at all. I will have to look into the actual number, but I believe it was close to 5, and they were on the west coast.
June 30th, 2004 at 9:05 pm
First of all, on how the republicans supported getting rid of slavery, didn’t the republican party later become the democratic party? It may have been before-my memory of history can be scetchy at times.
I will also admit that my knowledge of the constitution isn’t always the best, and I really have nothing to add to the conversation on the 17th amendment. So I don’t. So please don’t “call me out” on it; I comment on things I know and understand, and try not to spread my ignorance on other matters.
June 30th, 2004 at 9:19 pm
“A bunch of lifers” “Maybe we should scrap our paycheck for food stamps?”
Your right you didn’t mention welfare specifically, I was argueing with someone else about it and I jumped on these statements of yours. Sorry.
Slavery was not mandated in the Constitution but it was present in it. “…by adding the whole numbers of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons.” Yes liberal Republicans panned it and I am forever greatful for them.
Republican as in less controled by the people directly and more in the hands of elected represenatives. I just wanted to point out the controversy of unelected judges wielding power vs. unelected senators wielding it. I didn’t want to assume you held the same view but I wanted to mention it just in case.
People can elect different state legislators but that in itself is complex, perhaps people disagree only with the Senator chosen and not their state legistator. When you vote for the President their judicial appointments are probably not unimportant, but they are often not the main reason you vote for or against them.
June 30th, 2004 at 10:02 pm
Hello, why can’t I post a comment?
June 30th, 2004 at 10:11 pm
Matt, I have a comment that I am trying to post, but it ins’t going through for some reason.
June 30th, 2004 at 10:25 pm
certain things are blocked. I dunno what, though I know to some degree that you can’t make a personal attack on Matt. Which makes sense, this being his blog and such :p
June 30th, 2004 at 10:31 pm
Definitely not a personal attack on Matt and I have even replaced all special characters with proper HTML tags and such.
Kyle, you must not think that highly of me if you think I would make a personal attack on Matt
June 30th, 2004 at 10:34 pm
“A bunch of lifers” I meant that we have Senators that are there for life. “Lifers”
“Maybe we should scrap our paycheck for food stamps” was simply another analogy regarding “changes” was not a statement on welfare.
Yes, you are correct it was present in it, but it doesn’t call for Slavery. The nature of “being”, back then, called for servitude sometimes for debtors and sometimes for those that the debtors had decided to provide “in their steed”. BTW, the Liberal Republicans of old are what I would call “regular” Republicans of today. Both parties have shifted left, with the Democrats practically falling off the map into Socialism (where many are today, i.e. Hilary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich). The Democrats of old, commonly called “JFK Democrats” are typically considered Republicans today. Most are Conservative Libertarians such as myself.
Yes it is complex, so is electing a President. You don’t directly elect the Vice President as he is “appointed” by the Presidential candidate. So, if something happens to the President we are stuck with who they chose. Now, I am a solid Republican, but God help us if Dan Quayle became President, or for that matter, Al Gore. If you can’t trust those you elect to do their job, including appointing the Senator, then you can’t trust them to do their “JOB”. Ergo, fire them and elect someone else. We almost had that happen here in Pittsburgh this year with Pat Toomey putting up a substantial fight against Arlen “Pork Barrel” Specter, it came down to a 1000 plus votes.
June 30th, 2004 at 10:35 pm
Let’s try this one paragraph at a time.
“A bunch of lifers” I meant that we have Senators that are there for life. “Lifers”
June 30th, 2004 at 10:35 pm
Unfortunately - I grew up in western Mass and this will end up being the will of the people. I’d go up there to visit when i lived in Texas. I’m originally from Northampton - Home of Smith Coleege (My mom, aunts, and sister went there). I remember being amazed at the hammers and sickles painted on wall, the anti-columbus day banners, and the militant lesbians. Lets face it, the reason they are changing this is because they know that the state (commonwealth actually) will put a liberal dem in there. From history, I would assume a stinking rich limousine liberal.
June 30th, 2004 at 10:36 pm
“Maybe we should scrap our paycheck for food stamps” was simply another analogy regarding “changes” was not a statement on welfare.
June 30th, 2004 at 10:41 pm
Yes, you are correct it was present in it, but it doesn’t call for Slavery. The nature of “being”, back then, called for servitude sometimes for debtors and sometimes for those that the debtors had decided to provide “in their steed”. BTW, the Liberal Republicans of old are what I would call “regular” Republicans of today. Both parties have shifted left, with the Democrats practically falling off the map into Socialism [where many are today, i.e. Hilary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich]. The Democrats of old, commonly called “JFK Democrats” are typically considered Republicans today. Most are Conservative Libertarians such as myself.
June 30th, 2004 at 11:00 pm
Ok, I can’t post the rest of it for some reason. Not nearly as long as some of my other commments, so I don’t think it is that. It has ” ‘ and ( but they all seem to work to.
June 30th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
Matt, let me know what I can do bud.
July 1st, 2004 at 12:16 am
I didn’t say you were attacking him, I was just listing the only thing I know to be not allowed :p
And…to digress slightly, what was so great about Columbus anyways? The vikings found America way before he did, and they at least knew it was somewhere NEW xD
July 1st, 2004 at 1:29 am
Seriously Snarktruth, I’m sorry about going on that welfare tangent, I misinterpreted what you wrote because I had had a heated arguement with someone else about welfare.
July 1st, 2004 at 5:42 am
Ok Miles, no worries, I can see how you got there. I just wish I could post the rest of my comments regarding the 17th Amendment, but oh well. Maybe another day.