> 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.
I note that the two key words above are „representation“ and „vacancy.“ This leads to the following points:
* *Representation* isn’t just „he exists“ but an active, legally binding activity requiring intent and cognitive capacity. If Mitch is incapacitated (or brain-dead, as reported) then he isn’t „representing“ and is thus „vacant“ in his responsibilities. Representation is not merely holding a title, it requires active cognitive function and the agency to act on behalf of the citizens.
* In common law, a position or office is considered „vacant“ not just when a person dies/resigns/removed but when that position is devoid of a legally competent occupant. In fact if we look at the „Vacancies act“ it defines vacancies as possibly occurring due to sickness. [„These time limitations do not apply, however, to “a **vacancy caused by sickness**.” 5 U.S.C. § 3346(a).“](https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R44997/R44997.5.pdf)
* Forcing a state to endure with a completely incapacitated senator, directly violates the democratic intent of the 17th Amendment. It reduces a state’s constitutionally guaranteed equal representation in the Senate, creating a functional vacancy. (e.g. taxation without representation)
So why doesn’t Beshear order a medical evaluation of Mitch and if there’s a finding of Mich being incapacitated, then order a new election based on „vacancy?“
Leave A Reply
Du musst angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.
1 Kommentar
The 17th Amendment 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.
I note that the two key words above are „representation“ and „vacancy.“ This leads to the following points:
* *Representation* isn’t just „he exists“ but an active, legally binding activity requiring intent and cognitive capacity. If Mitch is incapacitated (or brain-dead, as reported) then he isn’t „representing“ and is thus „vacant“ in his responsibilities. Representation is not merely holding a title, it requires active cognitive function and the agency to act on behalf of the citizens.
* In common law, a position or office is considered „vacant“ not just when a person dies/resigns/removed but when that position is devoid of a legally competent occupant. In fact if we look at the „Vacancies act“ it defines vacancies as possibly occurring due to sickness. [„These time limitations do not apply, however, to “a **vacancy caused by sickness**.” 5 U.S.C. § 3346(a).“](https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R44997/R44997.5.pdf)
* Forcing a state to endure with a completely incapacitated senator, directly violates the democratic intent of the 17th Amendment. It reduces a state’s constitutionally guaranteed equal representation in the Senate, creating a functional vacancy. (e.g. taxation without representation)
So why doesn’t Beshear order a medical evaluation of Mitch and if there’s a finding of Mich being incapacitated, then order a new election based on „vacancy?“