Odd party invite, but it could work.
Getting back to the OP, Dayton, the Democratic governor of Minnesota, appointed his lieutenant governor to fill the seat. She is a Democrat. Now the President of the Minnesota Senate becomes the lieutenant governor. She is a Republican.
Dayton and the MN Attorney General say Fischbach has to resign her Senate seat (the MN GOP holds a one-vote majority in the state Senate). The GOP says she doesn’t, since the lieutenant governor does not have any particular duties assigned by the state constitution, and they point to a 1898 Minnesota Supreme Court decision saying that she would not have to resign. Cite for the above.
The usual lawsuits will, no doubt, ensue.
Regards,
Shodan
Any way to access that supreme court decision? It seems to directly contradict the State constituion.
“No senator or representative shall hold any other office under the authority of the United States or the state of Minnesota, except that of postmaster or of notary public.”
Sounds pretty specific to me. I assume she could turn down the Lt. Gov position, and keep her seat in the senate, but I’m not seeing how she can do both.
The decision appears to be included at the end of this article.
That was a much more in depth article, that certainly shows that the circumstances, while somewhat similar, are also quite different, and so it is not a case of simply following precedent.
If she takes it to court, a new ruling should be made, and the differences are enough that I do not think it should be in her favor.
That said, she should be able to refuse the position, and have it go to the next in line or by appointment (or however the next lt. gov would be selected.)
Why? What differences matter to you? The central difference is that in the 1898 case the office of Lt. Gov. became “vacant” because the office of Gov. had become vacant, and everyone moved up one step. Here, it’s just the office of the Lt. Gov. that will become vacant. But I don’t think that changes the Court’s analysis.
As I read it, the court essentially concludes that constitutional provision doesn’t apply where the senator moves into the office of Lt. Gov. as the result of a vacancy. The focus is on the effect of the alternative on temporary vacancies (which neither that case nor this one deal with). That is, if the Governor were temporarily incapacitated, the Lt. Gov. would become acting Governor and the Senate president would become acting Lt. Gov. When the Gov. returns to office, the Lt. Gov. goes back to being Lt. Gov. and, under your rule, the Senate president is out of a job entirely.
The court notes: “in case such vacancy [in the office of Governor] is only temporary, then at its termination the governor resumes his office, the lieutenant governor his, and the president pro tempore will be out of office entirely, and the people of his district deprived of the right to be represented in the senate until his successor can be elected.” The court rejects this construction.
(If you’re a fan of The West Wing, this is the problem that Acting President/Speaker Walken faced, and I think that it’s equally absurd. Apply the same rule to a more mundane issue: Bush twice invoked the 25th Amendment to make Cheney acting president while he underwent medical procedures. If the office of VP was vacant, is it really the case that the Speaker is acting president for a few hours and then out of office entirely?)
The court goes on to talk about how the Lt. Gov. exercises purely legislative powers, so that the Senate president wouldn’t be called upon to exercise executive powers, and I don’t know if that has changed in the last 120 years (I don’t know anything about the powers of the Minnesota Lt. Gov.). But the interpretation of the constitutional provision based on the alternative consequences discussed above hasn’t changed (it’s the exact same argument they’re having now). So, I wonder why you think it’s “quite different” and sufficiently different for a different rule.
To partially answer my own question, I’ve read the Minnesota Attorney General’s advisory opinion, available here. Her argument is that in in the 1970s the office of Lt. Gov. was changed to remove its legislative duties and add executive duties. Therefore, the court’s emphasis on the fact that the senate president and the lieutenant governor had overlapping powers is outdated and therefore creates a new issue.
The AG’s opinion does not address the temporary vacancy issue at all (which to me is really the thrust of the 1898 opinion), but does a good job addressing the “executive duties” issue.
Not including today, four more days until the gropey, molesting, date-rapey* is gone in shame and disgrace. Now if only the Cheeto-In-Chief gets thrown out for his date-rapey (and regular-rape) offenses, we’ll be off to a good start. But until then,
FOUR DAYS LEFT!
"Honka-Honka"ing a woman’s boobs when she’s sleeping* is pretty damned date-rapey.
**An advanced “Go screw yourselves” to the inevitable twit who follows up with moon-hoax-esque observations like “If you hold the picture at exactly 37.4 degrees to the light and look a the pixel in row 714, column 37, you can see that his left index finger is hovering just 1.32468 micrometers above her breast: he’s not actually touching her. As my ‘evidence’ proves”
Just to be clear (and I’m sure I’m going to regret this) but are you just trying to minimize or marginalize the women who have actually be date raped, did you just get carried away, or do you really think that acting like a cad in a photo is really the equivalent of rape and you’re now just blowing past harassment and making everything rape?
I’m hardly marginalizing Franken’s sexual assault on a sleeping and helpless victim. In fact, you seem to be marginalizing him groping her (as the photographic evidence clearly shows) while she’s unable to resist by laughingly calling him a “cad”. Good heavens, couldn’t you at least go to “rapscallion” or “scalawag”?
Where would you put Bill Cosby? “Bounder”? “Churl”? “Cad”?
Because, beyond the “gave them roofies” part, the other part of Cosby’s crimes (fondling an unconscious person) is pretty much what the picture shows Franken doing.
But sexual assault is not rape. There are degrees to this sort of thing and while I find Franken’s actions abhorrent, they are not rape any more than slapping someone across the face and beating them into a bloody pulp are the same degree of physical assault.
Fenris, I don’t know if you really don’t get it, or if you know you’re in an untenable position with your hyperbole and you don’t want to admit it.
So I’ll ask you this. If God forbid, you or a loved one had to endure either:
a) being asleep with a guy acting like he’s grabbing their breasts or touching them so lightly they don’t even wake up, or,
b) being drugged by someone, and he then forcibly put their penis inside you / loved one.
You are equating the two when you say that Franken is “date-raping” people when most people consider it harassment. Both bad mind you, but not on the same level. Some, myself included, are concerned that going down the road of harassment = rape is problematic. Perhaps not for you.
Franken defends NSA surveillance.
Franken did four USO tours in Iraq and spoke at West Point in 2005. He opposed withdrawing American forces until the war became politically toxic, and the extent of his criticisms until then were process complaints, e.g. the war was executed incompetently, Bush didn’t build a big enough coalition, send enough troops, or give the soldiers proper equipment.
Oy. I’m sorry I asked.
No, of course he’s not the only one, and yes they should all resign. If one slimy senator is unacceptable, why should the fact that the halls of power are knee-deep in slime be any more acceptable?
Careful. Suggesting there are degrees to sexual offenses, even though it’s patently obvious, can get you in a whole heap of trouble these days, as Matt Damon found recently to his cost.
So we should all just stop saying the truth because we might get in trouble.
Cite please? I think I know what your are referring to but I’m not aware of him being in any actual trouble.
Apparently Michelle Bachmann is considering a run (according to the TV).
Good. That is the base of the Republican party at this point. Those who think that folks like her and Roy Moore are dangerous wingnuts are the fringe.
They never learn, do they!
And at this point, we can safely say that Franken can no longer change his mind and stay.