Should Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Keep Her Seat?
SodaHead Politics
2011/01/20 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
275 votes
|
|
66% | |||
|
70 votes
|
|
17% | |||
|
72 votes
|
|
17% | |||
By most accounts, Democratic Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is making a remarkable recovery from a gunshot wound to the head sustained during deranged shooter Jared Loughner’s attack on January 8. In her latest bit of progress, Giffords reportedly was able to stand up from her bed and is expected to move to a rehabilitation center as early as this week.
And while her condition is still considered very serious and a setback could come at any time, some news outlets have already begun asking the sensitive question of what should become of Giffords’ House seat.
With a long and arduous road to recovery likely facing her, the conservative blog Frum Forum’s John S. Wilson asked, “There is no doubt her constituents mourn for her and her family. But does that mean they should also go without representation in Congress? Certainly not.”
He pointed to Arizona state law, which holds that if an office holder is unable to “discharge the duties of office for the period of three consecutive months, the office shall be deemed vacant and at such time, a special election could be called to fill the opening.”
But, as The Washington Post pointed out, the law does not apply to Giffords’ situation or to members of Congress. The U.S. Constitution is responsible for laying out the qualifications for service in Congress and the House is the sole judge of those qualification.
“Legally, it’s not a close call,” political law expert Brian Svoboda told the paper. “You have a history of interpreting these constitutional decisions and the courts have consistently struck down state laws that have tried to impose additional qualifications beyond those that are set forth in the Constitution.”
If she stays on, Giffords would not be the first incapacitated member of Congress to stay on despite a grave injury or illness. Slate magazine ran down the long history of other members of Congress who’ve stayed in their roles despite being unavailable for votes. The sole exception is when Rep. Gladys Spellman of Maryland suffered a heart attack and slipped into a coma in 1980 the day before Election Day. She won re-election, but after a few months doctors said she was unlikely to recover and her family agreed to vacate her seat.
Using the Spellman case as an example, less than two weeks after Giffords’ attempted assassination Wilson asked, “Is this how it should be? Should constituents allow members to hold onto their seats like political Brett Favres with no concept of when it is time to go?”
He suggested that Congress should take up the issue of Giffords’ seat immediately and in consultation with her family and Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer come to an “appropriate remedy.”
And while her condition is still considered very serious and a setback could come at any time, some news outlets have already begun asking the sensitive question of what should become of Giffords’ House seat.
With a long and arduous road to recovery likely facing her, the conservative blog Frum Forum’s John S. Wilson asked, “There is no doubt her constituents mourn for her and her family. But does that mean they should also go without representation in Congress? Certainly not.”
He pointed to Arizona state law, which holds that if an office holder is unable to “discharge the duties of office for the period of three consecutive months, the office shall be deemed vacant and at such time, a special election could be called to fill the opening.”
But, as The Washington Post pointed out, the law does not apply to Giffords’ situation or to members of Congress. The U.S. Constitution is responsible for laying out the qualifications for service in Congress and the House is the sole judge of those qualification.
“Legally, it’s not a close call,” political law expert Brian Svoboda told the paper. “You have a history of interpreting these constitutional decisions and the courts have consistently struck down state laws that have tried to impose additional qualifications beyond those that are set forth in the Constitution.”
If she stays on, Giffords would not be the first incapacitated member of Congress to stay on despite a grave injury or illness. Slate magazine ran down the long history of other members of Congress who’ve stayed in their roles despite being unavailable for votes. The sole exception is when Rep. Gladys Spellman of Maryland suffered a heart attack and slipped into a coma in 1980 the day before Election Day. She won re-election, but after a few months doctors said she was unlikely to recover and her family agreed to vacate her seat.
Using the Spellman case as an example, less than two weeks after Giffords’ attempted assassination Wilson asked, “Is this how it should be? Should constituents allow members to hold onto their seats like political Brett Favres with no concept of when it is time to go?”
He suggested that Congress should take up the issue of Giffords’ seat immediately and in consultation with her family and Republican Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer come to an “appropriate remedy.”
Top Opinion
-
Andrew1554 2011/01/21 16:56:26Yes






















There may need to be a provision enacted whereby an individual is appointed to serve by proxy.
To require that Giffords step down is to play right into the hands of nut jobs like Laughner and any would-be copycats. Unfortuntely, there haven't been stories in the press about an increase in "nut patrol," wherby loose cannons like Laughner are identified to law enforcement, rounded up and detained pending evaluation. Accordingly, such "reward" of bad behvior must be avoided.
the majority of the posts on this thread are the same boring political crap. wish people were as interested in suporting the laws then their own political ideology.
Plus she has the ability to improve with time.
She is the ELECTED official, and even though she is a dem, I would rather see her step back into her seat than someone APPOINTED to sit in her place. (Even though since they have a conservative Governor the appointy may do a better job.)
BTW They can appoint a someone if she is going to have an extended recovery or to sit in her place between the deadline and when they can have a speacial election to fill her seat.
She's predicted to make full if not close to full recovery and based on reports, miraculously quicker than expected! Don't know what it's going to take for this out-of-control rightwing to start acting like civil adults at the very least. I've yet to see any sign of warm consideration from any of the rightwingers.
Thanks.
This country has become so decisive that it's scary, and it's almost like everyone expects the other is going to be hateful. Sad, sad commentary on what is happening. Everyone should be working to find common ground, and moving toward the middle instead of both sides of the aisle instead of moving to polar opposites. I personally just don't understand it.
Have a great weekend, and stay warm.
politicains are civil servants and if one is wounded such as she is, how can she serve AZ, she may not be ready for a few years, if ever, why are people still making this a republican issue this is an issue of law and responsibility.
AND the only group dividing this United America is your party; funny, the majority has noted this but you haven't.
They went in with "cutting down the deficit" as point 1 and "job creating" as point 2; what's the first thing they do? Raise the deficit by 430 Billion to give extensions on Tax Cuts to the very wealthy! And where's the jobs? Nothing on their agenda to create jobs. Obama is doing all the work with no cooperation from the moronic Right.
You have to keep up with the news, HLC bill will literally save trillions over 10 years.
And the CBO findings are what Legislation has used for decades - now because the numbers don't satisfy the Republicans - they complain. It suited them before. The extremists are such a joke and I am so glad people are starting to see what they voted for! No wonder their approval rating is decreasing fast.