What happened to "Schlossberg"?

[JHB]

When did Caroline K. drop the "S"-name?

[endarkenment]

1. The googler is your friend

"Although she is often incorrectly referred to as "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg", she did not change her name when she married."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kennedy

Next objection?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

2. I don't like her new hair style. nt

[sohndrsmith]

4. now there's a good reason to not want someone to be Senator...

what hairstyle? Seems to me she's pretty much wash and wear... but I don't really pay attention to that unless it costs taxpayers 50 grand... then I get mad. : )

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

5. That's right damn it and don't get me started on her accessories.

:+

[sohndrsmith]

9. hee... but I want to SO MUCH.... : ) n/t

[tabbycat31]

19. she dosen't spend Sarah Palin $$

on a stylist. Nothing's wrong with that. I like her hair.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

22. I have no idea what her hair looks like nor do I care. That was what some people refer to as a joke.

:P

[Dr.Phool]

24. A joke?! On DU!?

Welcome to the land of the Humor Challenged!

Now gimme 20 Hail Mary's, throw a shoe, and read your Playboy.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

26. I've already completed tasks 2 and 3 this morning. I still owe you the first one. nt

[sohndrsmith]

3. that has happened before with less success, if I recall...

someone tried to keep or append her maiden name, it transformed (sort of) into a middle name... and seems to have been sort of forgotten pretty much these days. But it really isn't valuable as far as who the person is or what she does or doesn't stand for... does it?

The googler IS our friend - well said! : ) sorry I'm not posting this as a rebuttal... just as a "what endarkenment said! and... " sort of thing... (okay?)

Now that I've interrupted...

Next objection?

[endarkenment]

6. Well that is the thing isn't it?

Kennedy seems to be a pretty good person, smart too, and regardless of her name or her lack of prior political offices, I think she would be a fine interim appointment. The voters of New York will have their say in two years.

[sohndrsmith]

8. but don't you think the Governor would have a problem with the

"interim" label? I do, considering... Paterson may not see the appointment as interim, perhaps, but as full-fledged legit.

... after all...

[endarkenment]

10. Any appointment is interim.

Regardless of what the appointer and appointee think, until there is an election the person holding the seat is 'interim'.

[sohndrsmith]

11. Officially? I didn't see that part. Huh. No kiddin'.

only pertaining to "normally" elected positions, I'm assuming. I have to look that one up... interesting...

[endarkenment]

13. Officially? No.

In practice yes, and within a democratic republic where the position is normally one that is obtained by election, of course.

[sohndrsmith]

15. unless the seat becomes vacant, at which time the Gov of that state appoints

someone. At least that's what I glean from what I've read so far - there's more to it than that?

What restrictions are implied when the position is "interim" - just a promise not to campaign for the seat at the close of that term? That doesn't seem like it would go over too well... how would they convince anyone to be an appointee? I wish I knew more about this...

huh. Interesting.

[endarkenment]

16. It is interim because it is an appointment to an elected office

there is nothing official because officially an appointment is the same as being elected. However until the voters have actually had a say, appointments to elected offices are just that: interim.

[sohndrsmith]

18. I did some digging and you really know what you're talking about,

unlike me. : )

What I don't understand is - say X is appointed to the vacant seat. Wouldn't he/she serve out the term, at which point he/she could run for the next term? Or no? It seems that what distinguishes an appointed Senator from an elected Senator in a situation like this is close to nil... unless the appointee is unable or agrees not to campaign for the seat, which sounds like a true "interim" definition to me - but the more I read the more confused I get...

Does that make Paterson an interim Governor - or because he was next in line, perhaps that makes his not being elected less of an issue... and because - heck, I'm getting a headache.

I'm starting to think that this is very goofy... not sure the Founders had all this in mind. : ) Thanks for your insight....

[endarkenment]

23. Paterson was elected to be next in line.

So his situation is somewhat different than an appointment. The founders had a vastly different view of the Senate - the state legislatures appointed senators, they were not elected at all until 1913 by the 17th amendment.

The founders:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

...

and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Senate

The 17th:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each 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.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Note that in both the original and the amended text a vacancy that is replaced by an appointment is a temporary replacement, which is why I have insisted that regardless of the deals made or not made such replacements are interim.

[sohndrsmith]

25. right, I think I get that now, but - define "temporary"?

It seems that the "temporary" or interim appointed Senator is - by all rights indistinguishable from an elected Senator, unless there is a special election held separate from and sooner than concurrent with the normal election schedule. Seems like "special elections" can be held when regular elections are held, we just don't really pay attention (or perhaps care) to the difference....

I'm learning all of this in real time (as in right now) so I may not have it right. Seems to me if there is a difference per the Constitution, one would expect a difference discernible to the public... or maybe not. That's not always the case, is it?

So - pretend that Kennedy gets Clinton's seat (I read the Article, and the Amendment, and it doesn't really clarify it for me - there are still state specific issues as well):

Unless there is a "special election" prior to the end of what would be Clinton's end-of-term, the appointed Senator would complete that term, as a full-fledged (junior) Senator, without any restrictions or limitations enjoyed by an elected Senator...

Right so far?

Okay, if there is a special election - that I understand. if not, and the appointee completes the term - this is where I get confused.

Is that appointee then prevented from campaigning for the following term of that seat? If not, what differentiates them from the public perception of their being an "incumbent" and - if there really is nothing of a marked difference, what and why is it an issue?

Every Senator has to run for re-election, no? Unless appointed/interim Senators are somehow differentiated (most easily, I'd guess via special election) - then what makes one different from the other - other than how they secured the seat (by appointment or election). What makes them different? There isn't always a "special election", and they operate under full Senatorial rights and rules... so it's a bit ambiguous.

Or I'm just daft....

I appreciate your expertise, and you're under no obligation to explain all this but I am fascinated... and grateful. Thanks.

[endarkenment]

27. Ultimately it is just a label.

In all other respects the Senator is equivalent to an elected senator. I don't know if the replacement inherits seniority and chairs of the replaced senator, I doubt that is the case but if it is that might be the only real distinction.

As a label though it has some significance. These replacements do have to stand for election, and when they do they do not have the same position as an elected incumbent. A serious primary challenge, for example, which under other circumstances might be difficult to mount, could be easier. Also this talk about how Paterson should instead appoint a 'caretaker' who would some how automatically step down in two years is just nonsense. Whatever such agreement Paterson might make would have no legal basis and the caretaker could simply turn around and run for election.

[sohndrsmith]

30. Ahhh.... Okay - there is the main difference then.

Seniority makes sense, including in regards to the re-election (or election) challenge... Ya, the "caretaker" label made zero sense to me... he'd get nothing but refusals, I would think. It really is overly confusing, seems to me.

Thank you for making sense out of it. Well, clarifying it. It's not a very sensible method, apparently (witness the current melee).

I wonder how "difficult" it would be for states to figure out how to pre-fund a special election coffer - to be used productively elsewhere unless and until at such a time that a special election is needed. Nah... more complication, more detail... bad idea.

Illinois is an even more resounding example that should clue us into this maybe isn't the most useful way to do things. If it is ultimately up to the states, my guess is some of them have come up with better solutions than an appointment that is equal but resented by half, and with almost a lame-duck disadvantage at the starting gate. How strange.

Originally, all Senators were "appointed" I believe. Wondering how unreasonable it would be for partisan Senators to vote (elect) the person to fill a seat vacated by someone in their party. That's probably glaringly stupid, but there would at least be the sense that we elected them to represent us - so on and so forth... absent a full-fledged election (risking a party loss as a result, which is why it probably isn't more popular - aside from the expense and distraction and logistics... ugh), at least there would be a marginally recognizable democratic process...

The more I learn about politics the more baffling it gets - sometimes. Sometimes, it's brilliant and that's fun.

[endarkenment]

28. Ultimately it is just a label.

In all other respects the Senator is equivalent to an elected senator. I don't know if the replacement inherits seniority and chairs of the replaced senator, I doubt that is the case but if it is that might be the only real distinction.

As a label though it has some significance. These replacements do have to stand for election, and when they do they do not have the same position as an elected incumbent. A serious primary challenge, for example, which under other circumstances might be difficult to mount, could be easier. Also this talk about how Paterson should instead appoint a 'caretaker' who would some how automatically step down in two years is just nonsense. Whatever such agreement Paterson might make would have no legal basis and the caretaker could simply turn around and run for election.

[sohndrsmith]

14. I'm not really finding that info exactly... I'm confused. I don't

believe Clinton has given the seat up, yet, either, right? She shouldn't - until she's been confirmed - I would guess... that only makes sense.

I don't see where interim is official, unless requested that the appointee not challenge the seat for the next election (I guess allowing the former person to vy for it without much of a fight...) or is that incorrect?

[endarkenment]

17. It isn't official

I am simply making the claim that any appointment to a normally elected position should be viewed as 'interim' until such time as there is a normal election. The appointee certainly has the advantage of incumbency at the next election, but may also suffer from the public perception of the political situation of the appointment. Just because Kennedy might get appointed to fill Clinton's seat does not guarantee that she will run for that seat in two years, or that she will make it through the primary and the general election if she does choose to run.

[SoCalDem]

21. Yep.. the 6-year term for each state is "etched in stone"

so only a third come up for election every 2 years..and when a replacement is made, they only serve until the NEXT election cycle (regardless of when that state's 6-yr senate cycle is)..that "next-statewide-election" is a contested election, participated in, by ALL parties...and then when the regular election cycle comes up, all p

[Captain Hilts]

7. Actually, the NYDailyNews had them splitsville...

a few years back. The story had no traction. Just a rumor.

[polichick]

12. No poetry in "Schlossberg" - glad she kept her own name.

[ecstatic]

20. lol. nt

[Cha]

29. Edwin is doing quite well, thank you.

<snips>

"Edwin Arthur Schlossberg (born July 19, 1945) , founder and principal of ESI Design, is an internationally recognized designer, author and artist. Schlossberg specializes in designing interactive, participatory experiences, beginning in 1977 with the first hands-on learning environment in the U.S. for the Brooklyn Children's Museum. Schlossberg continues to work in the field and publishes frequently on the subject. Schlossberg is the author of Interactive Excellence: Defining and Developing New Standards for the Twenty-first Century.

Schlossberg's multidisciplinary design firm, ESI Design, is based in New York City and has produced award-winning interactive experiences for both institutional and corporate clients. Signature projects include:

Best Buy - Concept Stores
Ellis Island - American Family Immigration History Center
Playa Vista
Pope John Paul II Cultural Center
Reuters Spectacular at 3 Times Square
Sony Plaza and Sony Wonder Technology Lab
World Financial Center Breezeway Media Walls
World Trade Center and World Financial Center Informational Kiosks"

<more>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Schlossberg