On the subject of Ma Senators, succession and changing the law: my own thoughts

[TayTay]

This has been in the news a lot and the subject of some heated discussion on the blogs. Here are some facts interspersed with my own feelings on the matter. Please feel free to share your thoughts on this as well.

in 2004 the Massachusetts legislature, called, formally, the Great and General Court (and it pissed me off when people call it "the lege" which was not a nickname for it heretofore around these parts. The nickname was the General Court or the Statehouse not what Texas nicknames it's legislature. The several states are different; that is what gives them their charm, after all) changed the law of succession for how US Senators are chosen in the event of a vacancy. Before the change, Governors (called, by some "guvanahz") could appoint interim Senators until the next general election was held in the Commonwealth.

(We are not, technically, a state, we are one of 4 Commonwealths in the country. Virginia, Kentucky and Pennsylvania also are Commonwealths. Being a "Commonwealth" doesn't mean you are a pinko liberal state, because then Kentucky probably wouldn't be one. It means you were organized around the idea of providing for the common weal or well being of a territory, btw.)

Did politics play a role in making this change? Ah, is the Pope Catholic? Of course politics played a role in making this change. John Kerry is a Democrat from a state (small reference to MA as a state among a group of 50 is okay, depends on context, btw) that is overwhelmingly Democratic. In 2004, Massachusetts was suffering under the oppressive yoke of a Republican Guvanah (note: do I have to say this was a personal and constitutionally allowable sentiment on my part?) Mitt Romney would have appointed a Republican to the US Senate and life as we know it in Massachusetts would have been forever changed. (I'm not sure if it would have been an apocalyptic event or merely catastrophic, but it would have been real bad, trust me.)

So, the Democratic leaders of the Massachusetts House and Senate got together and averted disaster by changing the Law of Succession for Senators. John Kerry's Senate seat would be safe from (God I'm gonna get the vapors here just thinking about this) a Republican and, oh yes, the people would get to elect their Senate representation. All good, as far as it went. (OMG, just the thought of a Repub Senitah makes me want to go out for a drink or six. God Save The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) Republicans tried to have some imput into the new law and suggested that an interim Senator be appointed until such time as a real Senator could be freely elected by the people. Shortsightedly, this was not done. That was, imho, an severe oversight. (And a singular example of me citing a decent Republican political idea. I can cross that task off of my "bucket list" now. "Say something nice about an MA Republican idea before you die: done!))

Time passed and the law, alas, was not needed. No one ever really thought, seriously, about Senate replacements again. (We had perfectly good Senators, thank you very much, and it would be that way forever.) Then Teddy got sick 5 months into his term and serious people started to think about what would happen if the unthinkable occurred and his Senate seat became vacant. So, as far back as last May, there were thoughts about changing the 2004 law.

The argument was made that the 2004 change was done due to, horrors!!! p o l i t i c s (dun, dun, dun) and therefore the law could not be changed again lest politicians seek to insert politics into lawmaking on a regular basis in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Huge numbers of people, who apparently never read a newspaper before, were shocked, shocked to find that politics is involved in lawmaking or has anything to do with the motives of politicians. Poor babies.) Nope, the law had been changed and therefore it had to stay the same, even if a better idea that served the Commonwealth and her interests in Congress came along. Otherwise, the decision would be, ick, political.

His Excellency, the Guvanah of Massachusetts and The Honorables floating around (our other electeds) have come up with a solid, good sense way of both getting a Senator freely elected by the people and protecting the votes of Massachusetts in the US Senate. It involves making changes to the 2004 law. It makes sense to do this. Naturally, nothing that makes good sense can go unchallenged. So, we are going to have us a nice donnybrook over whether or not to honor Teddy's wishes and make it alright to have a Temp Senator for a while until we get a permanent Senator elected.

(BTW, The Guvanah of MA is referred to as "His Excellency" because in 1742 the King of England decided that the rubes in rebellious MA didn't deserve to have a Guvanah called "Your Excellency" because they were, well, rubes and demoted the honorific to "the Honorable." The Revolution comes around, the opposition takes over and the honorific "His Excellency, the Governor of Massachusetts" was restored. Huzzah! Take that King George you rotund bastid. Ahm, the Guvanah was originally called "Your Excellency" because the first Guvanah of the colony was an English Earl and took his title with him to Boston. That local democratic sentiment wanted to restore a monarchical title to a democratic Governor as a show of defiance to an English King is an irony we will discuss at another time. It's very Mass-y thing when you think about it.)

So, is this clear? Any questions? God Save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts! (Because nobody else can.)