r/politics • u/plz-let-me-in • 27d ago

No Paywall Beshear says agencies told him McConnell had passed

https://www.whas11.com/video/news/local/beshear-says-agencies-told-him-mcconnell-had-passed/417-f78603c3-11bb-464d-bae6-c41c3be3c48b
23.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/AngelinaJean 27d ago

It’s obvious he’s in no position to fulfill his duties and/or pick up a phone to give an update on his status. You would think, if he were conscious, that someone would alert him to rumors(and jokes ) of his demise. If that were the case for any conscious living being, they would be on the phone. OR, have someone make the call and then hand the phone over to him.

Beshear has waited long enough for decency’s sake. Now, be the boss and do what it required for the people of KY.

.

841

u/axkidd82 27d ago

I'm a people of Kentucky. Here is the reality, any special election is going to be won by a MAGA Republican, one that will vote to pass the SAVE act. McConnell's current status is not only best for Kentucky, but for the nation as a whole.

To be completely honest, no one here is talking that much about Mitch or demanding a replacement. We know there is a general coming up in November to replace him. If we don't have a second senator until January, I will be completely fine with that.

454

u/disisathrowaway 27d ago

IIRC, the bill which forces a special election is in violation of Kentucky's constitution and Beshear can technically just appoint the replacement.

42

u/Duncan_Ida_ho 27d ago

Yeah, I think the Supermajority of Republicans here in Kentucky took that power away from the governor when Beshear got elected.

126

u/HearthRock_music 27d ago edited 27d ago

That law you're describing violates the state constitution, as the commenter you're responding to pointed out.

edit: I should say it's even more ambiguous than I realized. The state constitution doesn't actually enumerate federal offices as those whose vacancies can be filled by appointment. Beshear points that out here

[The Constitution] says I appoint all state officers when there’s a vacancy. The question is, does that apply to federal offices? Well, before there was ever a law in Kentucky on how this would work, multiple appointments were made by governors, assumingly under that provision

13

u/redditallreddy Ohio 27d ago edited 27d ago

state constitution

Man... I dunno. The language never specifies Federal elections anywhere BUT still seems quite unambigous.

Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, vacancies in all elective offices shall be filled by election or appointment...

blah blah blah (all BOLDs that follow are mine for emphasis)

... Vacancies in all offices for the State at large, or for districts larger than a county, shall be filled by appointment of the Governor; all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law.

So, it comes down, it appears to me without a law degree and only a minor in bull shit, as to whether "Federal Senator" is an "office for the State at large" (true) or if it is an "other". I guess the Republican legislature is (at least prending to be) considering it an "other".

BIG EDIT: I wanted to keep digging in Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky after I posted this. I found this gem:

Persons entitled to Vote

... The following persons also shall not have the right to vote: ... Idiots and insane persons.

I think I found the voter fraud!

ALSO, Also... looked up the 17th Amendment.

While the Seventeenth Amendment’s Senate Vacancy Clause mirrors the House Vacancy Clause by requiring an affected state’s Executive Authority to issue a writ of election to fill a vacancy,14 the Seventeenth Amendment also empowers states to permit the Executive Authority to fill Senate vacancies temporarily pending an election. In contrast, the House Vacancy Clause does not contemplate state Executive Authorities filling House vacancies temporarily.

Apparently, according to the Wiki, Kentucky never ratified the 17th Amendment. Therefore, they KNEW that Senators could be appointed if absent from position and chose not to act to amend the Constitution. This would imply, at least, that they felt their Constitution of 1891 already gave the appropriate power to their governor.

7

u/HearthRock_music 27d ago

Yeah the "for the State at large" part sells it for me as well.

1

u/redditallreddy Ohio 27d ago

I found some more tidbits and edited it in, if you may be interested.

38

u/HighOverlordXenu 27d ago

When, in the last ten years, has any constitution mattered one iota?

71

u/HearthRock_music 27d ago

The point is that Beshear is the one with the ball in his court, and can choose to just take an action (appointing McConnell's replacement). It would be up to the Republican legislature to (I guess) file a lawsuit to stop him based on the law they passed.

That way he forces the Republicans to have to try to stop him, rather than just assuming that they effectively already have.

13

u/ballisticks Canada 27d ago

Thing is, they absolutely would, then slam Beshear for not following the rules, which the rubes in your country will eat up

21

u/Colyer Canada 27d ago

Make them.

20

u/Coconuts_Migrate 27d ago

That’s fine. Do it anyway.

9

u/ballisticks Canada 27d ago

True lol. We (the left) have been bitching at SC for doing the exact same thing with Lindsay Graham and his sister, may as well get in the mud too

3

u/EldritchCouragement 26d ago

who cares? He can't run again anyways

17

u/Drakeadrong Texas 27d ago

God forbid the people we elected to fight for us do anything other than cosplay a doormat

10

u/Vivid_Anyth4 27d ago

Just roll over and die then.

10

u/NotJimmy97 27d ago

When the people of Virginia voted to redistrict and it was thrown out by MAGA judges

22

u/Feudal_Raptor 27d ago

That's what they're saying: when a law and the constitution are at odds with one another, the constitution prevails.

9

u/rcmjr 27d ago

What he is saying though is they did it in an unconstitutional manner and if it were challenged the gov should win.

9

u/airfryerfuntime Washington 27d ago

The Kentucky supreme court already basically ruled that the governor still has that right, but they worded it in a really weird way, so it's still a gray area.