# Senator Kirk and the Constitutionality of Expedient Law Switching **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2009, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967 "2009-10-07T19:07:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/101 "2009-10-13T15:58:49Z")
This is like proving the (equally obvious) fact that the recent pattern of extending copyright terms by twenty years every other decade violates the “limited terms” stipulation in the Patents and Copyrights Clause. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/102 "2009-10-13T16:20:19Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > **jsgoddess** , should Senators be elected or not? :dubious: Yes, Elvis, senators should be elected. Senators have been elected for a long time, and the various idiosyncrasies of various states doesn’t stop them from being elected. The original law didn’t stop Senators from being elected. The new law doesn’t magically make Senators _more_ elected. The same number of Senators are elected. There are still 100 Senators, and they’re still elected. The people go to the polls and Senators are elected. Elected elected elected, with a side of fries. Elected. Oh, and by the way, elected. Senators. Elected. Still a representative democracy. Still assigning a significant power to a single temporary hired hand instead of to the people themselves. Yep, still elected. Except for Paul Kirk. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/103 "2009-10-13T16:53:39Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Yes, Elvis, senators should be elected. Then you shouldn’t have such a problem with a law requiring just that, should you? > [@](#): > > The original law didn’t stop Senators from being elected. When a vacancy occurred, yes it did. You really haven’t been paying attention at all, have you? > [@](#): > > The new law doesn’t magically make Senators _more_ elected. Oh, wait - are you somehow under the impression that appointment is a synonym for election? > [@](#): > > Still assigning a significant power to a single temporary hired hand instead of to the people themselves. Yep, still elected. Yes, you are! Um, wow. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/104 "2009-10-13T17:07:00Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > When a vacancy occurred, yes it did. You really haven’t been paying attention at all, have you? You mean, if Romney had been able to appoint a Senator, there would never be an election ever again for that seat? WOW! That was a lot of power! And this new law doesn’t allow a governor to appoint a Senator without a pesky election? WOW again! You’re so right! This is so democratic and the previous way was so so so undemocratic! Wait! The difference seems to be a matter of timing and of partisanship. The House Speaker in Massachusetts even says so: > [@](#): > > “That was a good political reason (then),” DiMasi said of taking the power away from Romney. “It’s a good political reason to change it back.” A “political” reason, Elvis. Not an ethical reason. Not a reason spurred by some deep-seated reverence for democracy. That you think if you say it often enough it becomes true is just embarrassing for you. It’s like watching a movie where some geeky kid gets pantsed in front of the whole school. Some people are probably laughing, but damn, it’s just uncomfortable to see. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/105 "2009-10-13T17:22:19Z")
A good overview is [here](http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/24/massachusetts-legislature/massachusetts-legislature-flip-flops-governors-sen/): > [@](#): > > But two factors made the flip-flop more egregious. One was the rhetoric that Democrats used to defend the initial effort to strip gubernatorial appointment power. Many legislators argued that the power to choose U.S. senators ought to reside with the voters, not with one person. > > For instance, Democratic state Rep. J. James Marzilli Jr. told the Boston Globe in 2004, “It’s ridiculous. We choose senators and members of Congress in elections. We shouldn’t let politicians make those choices for us.” The article added that Marzilli “was unconcerned” about leaving the seat vacant until the special election. “We already have a congressional delegation, and we’ll always have at least one member in the United States Senate,” he said. > > Meanwhile, House Speaker Thomas Finneran charged that Romney wanted to name the next senator “in a back room,” according to the Boston Herald. He added, “That’s reform? Please.” > > And Senate President Robert E. Travaglini said, according to the Globe, “We have always felt that this position is significant enough that no one person should make that determination. It should be decided by the people.” (None of the three Democrats were serving in the legislature by 2009.) > > The second factor that underlined the magnitude of the flip-flop is that Democratic legislative leaders in 2004 specifically rejected an entreaty by Romney to allow the governor to pick a temporary senator. In fact, Romney even offered to let Democratic leaders have a say in whom he picked. > > As the Globe reported on July 12, 2004, a top aide to Romney unveiled the proposal on the steps of the state Capitol, saying the governor was willing to submit the name of a temporary appointee to the House speaker and the Senate president. That appointee would serve until the special election. (The temporary appointee could run in the special election; Kirk has promised not to.) > > But in 2004, key Democrats dismissed the governor’s proposal. State Sen. Brian Joyce, the Democratic co-chairman of the Election Laws Committee, called it “a clever political ploy.” It went nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/106 "2009-10-13T17:28:50Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > A good overview is [here](http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/24/massachusetts-legislature/massachusetts-legislature-flip-flops-governors-sen/): I like the sidebar links: > [@](#): > > **Browse the Obameter:** > All promises with No Action > All promises In the Works > All promises Stalled > Obama’s broken promises > Obama’s compromises 😃 Run along and play now. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/107 "2009-10-13T17:37:26Z")
Ooh, burn. No idea what you think your point is, but that’s hardly new. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/108 "2009-10-13T18:27:35Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Well, unlike Republicans, Democrats aren’t evil. > > . . . This post was an unnecesary personal attack that is not even backed by the facts: lots of Republicans challenged many of the acts that you ascribe to all Republicans and a number of the events that you cite–including those in which I am in agreement with your position–are open to differing interpretations, based on one’s beginnng beliefs. Knock it off and stick to the discussion. = = = **Everyone** , knock off the personal remarks that have no pl.ace in this discussion. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/109 "2009-10-13T18:38:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I do give you credit for answering honestly. > > So your view is that it’s Constitutional for a state legislature to make these kinds of changes to favor Democrats, but not to favor Republicans, because Republicans are evil? > > And the courts should take judicial notice of the fact that Republicans are evil, and guide their decisions thereby? There isn’t a Constitutional conflict here. How about this. Do you think Canadians don’t have Constitutional rights on US soil? Because your Republicans thought that, when they sent a man off to be brutally beaten with metal cables for a year. Which is more damaging to the Constitution, **Bricker** , a state adjusting it’s rules for picking it’s federal representation to conform to the popular will of that state, or a political party that sends innocent people off to be tortured because of the color of their passport? ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/110 "2009-10-13T18:39:49Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Okay. According to Lon Fuller there are eight elements to to the rule of law: > > 1. Laws must exist and those laws should be obeyed by all, including government officials. > 2. Laws must be published. > 3. Laws must be prospective in nature so that the effect of the law may only take place after the law has been passed. For example, the court cannot convict a person of a crime committed before a criminal statute prohibiting the conduct was passed. > 4. Laws should be written with reasonable clarity to avoid unfair enforcement. > 5. Law must avoid contradictions. > 6. Law must not command the impossible. > 7. Law must stay constant through time to allow the formalization of rules; however, law also must allow for timely revision when the underlying social and political circumstances have changed. > 8. Official action should be consistent with the declared rule. > > [From here.](http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/faq/Rule_of_Law.shtml) > > Now, it seems to me that these actions were in violation of Rules 1 and 7, as circumstances had not changed sufficiently to require changing the rules twice in a short timeframe. And this action also violates Rule 2, as it is clear to many that there is an unpublished and unwritten rule in place here - one that states that the laws will be rewritten as needed to benefit the Democratic Party. > > Now, as the rule of law depends entirely on the perception by most people that these rules are in place, arguing that this just a perception issue won’t hold water. The intent of these rules is to ensure confidence that laws apply to everyone - if that confidence is shaken the rule of law is damaged. It doesn’t violate Rules 1 and 7. The law makes available the power to change itself, thus Rule 1 is followed. You are arguing that the Democratic Party should follow the law as it was prior to the change. That is an unfair and illogical and arbitrary hold on their power. Rule 7 is not violated either. It clearly makes the case for _political circumstances_, which this is. There is nothing about what they did either to violate Rule 2, as the Republicans are free to do this when they are in power. It seems to me the complaint here is plainly that the Dems shouldn’t exercise their clearly Constitutional power to change the rules when they have the power to do so, and that the Republicans are harmed by this. Yes, they are “harmed”, if by “harmed” you mean that they lost the election and the power to do this themselves. Nothing here violates the possibility that they can get into power and do the same thing. It is fair and equal. If tomorrow Romney steps down and a Dem takes his place and the legislature changes the rules again, it will still be fair and equal because the rules allow for such change. The only discussion we should be having is whether or not the changes are a good idea. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/111 "2009-10-13T19:12:37Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > It doesn’t violate Rules 1 and 7. The law makes available the power to change itself, thus Rule 1 is followed. You are arguing that the Democratic Party should follow the law as it was prior to the change. That is an unfair and illogical and arbitrary hold on their power. > > Rule 7 is not violated either. It clearly makes the case for _political circumstances_, which this is. > > There is nothing about what they did either to violate Rule 2, as the Republicans are free to do this when they are in power. > > It seems to me the complaint here is plainly that the Dems shouldn’t exercise their clearly Constitutional power to change the rules when they have the power to do so, and that the Republicans are harmed by this. Yes, they are “harmed”, if by “harmed” you mean that they lost the election and the power to do this themselves. Nothing here violates the possibility that they can get into power and do the same thing. It is fair and equal. If tomorrow Romney steps down and a Dem takes his place and the legislature changes the rules again, it will still be fair and equal because the rules allow for such change. The only discussion we should be having is whether or not the changes are a good idea. Romney hasn’t been governor for almost 3 years now. Deval Patrick, a Democrat is governor, which is why the legislature felt safe passing a temporary appointment law now. If a Republican was still governor, then they would have been content to allow the Senate seat to stay vacant until the special election in January. And all the “democracy is good! The MA legislature is pure of heart!” cheerleading going on here notwithstanding, had Shannon O’Brien been governor in 2004, the law allowing a governor to appoint a replacement Senator until the next general election would still be on the books. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/112 "2009-10-13T20:06:47Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > And all the “democracy is good! The MA legislature is pure of heart!” cheerleading going on here notwithstanding, had Shannon O’Brien been governor in 2004, the law allowing a governor to appoint a replacement Senator until the next general election would still be on the books. Of course, but that gets a big ol’ “So what?” for a couple of reasons: (A) The problem of a partisan reversal of the people’s choice of party for that Senator by the Governor would still be just hypothetical, and (2) O’Brien’s decision would still have been under both direct and indirect, and likely decisive, political pressure from the people (yes, that concept again) from whom O’Brien would later want votes for her re-election. Romney, we now know (and suspected then) had already abandoned any thought he might once have had about that, and was already making plans for a presidential campaign based on badmouthing Massachusetts. BTW, it’s a bit disconcerting to see the sentiment that democracy is good dismissed as “cheerleading”. Are you sure you meant that? ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/113 "2009-10-13T20:37:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Of course, but that gets a big ol’ “So what?” for a couple of reasons: > > (A) The problem of a partisan reversal of the people’s choice of party for that Senator by the Governor would still be just hypothetical, and > > (2) O’Brien’s decision would still have been under both direct and indirect, and likely decisive, political pressure from the people (yes, that concept again) from whom O’Brien would later want votes for her re-election. Romney, we now know (and suspected then) had already abandoned any thought he might once have had about that, and was already making plans for a presidential campaign based on badmouthing Massachusetts. > > BTW, it’s a bit disconcerting to see the sentiment that democracy is good dismissed as “cheerleading”. Are you sure you meant that? Well I meant it in the sense that some people in this thread, including you, seemed to believe that the legislature passed the law in 2004 primarily because they’re so dedicated to democratic (small d) ideals. Having lived in this state for a few decades now, the idea that the statehouse is dedicated to anything but their own power and vanity is laughable. Also, you kept referring to the democratically elected governor as a “temporary hired hand”, as if the legislators, and the Senator leaving office, were not exactly the same thing. It’s not like the person making the selection of a replacement Senator was a minor clerk in the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s office hired because his wife’s cousin is a state rep. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/114 "2009-10-13T20:47:41Z")
Too late to edit: Plus, there’s the fact the state will have to spend a few million dollars to hold the special election in January, a whopping 10.5 months before the free election the pre-2004 law would have required. I don’t see having a democratically elected legislature decide to save some taxpayer money and allow a democratically elected governor appoint a replacement as being terribly undemocratic (small d again). ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/115 "2009-10-14T00:58:43Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > Which is more damaging to the Constitution, **Bricker** , a state adjusting it’s rules for picking it’s federal representation to conform to the popular will of that state, or a political party that sends innocent people off to be tortured because of the color of their passport? Are you saying Democrats don’t practice extraordinary rendition? Because that is contradicted by recent history. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/116 "2009-10-14T01:21:23Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > Are you saying Democrats don’t practice extraordinary rendition? Because that is contradicted by recent history. Are you saying torture is always a direct consequence of extraordinary rendition? Because extraordinary rendition, in and of itself, isn’t exactly terrible. Some pre-Bush instances of it involved the CIA’s snatching a terrorism suspect in a foreign country and bringing him to the U.S. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/117 "2009-10-14T13:48:31Z")
> [@muldoonthief](#): > > Well I meant it in the sense that some people in this thread, including you, seemed to believe that the legislature passed the law in 2004 primarily because they’re so dedicated to democratic (small d) ideals. No, it was absolutely done primarily as a political preemptive defense measure against what would have been a partisan hijack in itself (something the Democrat-haters in the thread have great difficulty in acknowledging), but the point was that the result was virtually indistinguishable from what it would have been if _only_ the principles of democracy had underlain it. Sometimes you do get the right result for the wrong reasons, and vice versa. Life is complicated that way, and so is politics. > [@](#): > > Also, you kept referring to the democratically elected governor as a “temporary hired hand”, as if the legislators, and the Senator leaving office, were not exactly the same thing. Oh, they are. But the bosses are the people. Shouldn’t the people normally be the ones to pick their own representatives directly, not other representatives chosen to perform other functions primarily? Incidentally, IMHO the attitude that politicians can \*only \*be self-serving, only interested in “their own power and vanity” and so forth, is a horribly corrosive (and often ignorant) one, probably far more damaging to democracy than anything else we’ve been discussing here. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/118 "2009-10-14T15:41:28Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Incidentally, IMHO the attitude that politicians can \*only \*be self-serving, only interested in “their own power and vanity” and so forth, is a horribly corrosive (and often ignorant) one, probably far more damaging to democracy than anything else we’ve been discussing here. So let me get this straight - a bunch of politicians act in such a way that appears so self-serving and power hungry that even many in their own party are critical, and you put the blame for this attitude and criticism the people, even calling them ignorant? And all this after a lot of rhetoric about politicians serving the people - about how we are their boss? At this point I think you are shoveling through the manure looking for the pony that must be there. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/119 "2009-10-14T16:52:14Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oh, they are. But the bosses are the people. Shouldn’t the people normally be the ones to pick their own representatives directly, not other representatives chosen to perform other functions primarily? Shouldn’t the people, through their elected representatives, decide that they’d rather save some taxpayer money and let another person they elected appoint a replacement for the 2 year maximum before the next regular election, where you’d get to elect a replacement at no cost? > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Incidentally, IMHO the attitude that politicians can \*only \*be self-serving, only interested in “their own power and vanity” and so forth, is a horribly corrosive (and often ignorant) one, probably far more damaging to democracy than anything else we’ve been discussing here. I don’t have that opinion about all politicians, everywhere, for all time. I do have that opinion for the great majority of current & recent Massachusetts legislators. The history of people like Sal DiMasi, Tom Finneran, and Billy Bulger tend to lead one to such a conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967/120 "2009-10-14T17:27:01Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > So let me get this straight - a bunch of politicians act in such a way that appears so self-serving and power hungry that even many in their own party are critical, and you put the blame for this attitude and criticism the people, even calling them ignorant? Yes. After all the facts and discussion here, most of which appears to have been new to you, you still discard it and revert to the “Yeah, well, anyway it _appeared_ yadayada” dodge. That is an embrace of ignorance. And you’re proud of it. > [@muldoonthief](#): > > Shouldn’t the people, through their elected representatives, decide that they’d rather save some taxpayer money and let another person they elected appoint a replacement for the 2 year maximum before the next regular election, where you’d get to elect a replacement at no cost? Cite for any poll or any other research showing the people preferring that? Shouldn’t democracy be the default assumption? Why not? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/senator-kirk-and-the-constitutionality-of-expedient-law-switching/512967.md?page=5)