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
With that said, no one can know for sure what the results of her brain damage will be. I think that I would want my representative replaced after such an injury due to the unknown outcome and perpetual doubt that would surround that person for the rest of their career.
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.”
Didn't the people of Arizona allow McCain to serve while he was out for a year with his cancer?
She's only been out less than 2 weeks.
Isn't this a premature dancing on her political grave?
WTF?????
Why are you accusing me of that????
Dancing on the political grave is an extremely common expression used in discussions of the careers of politicians.
I certainly did not imagine you would think I was applying it to you-
and never imagined you would take it literally.
I'm sorry for upsetting you- but will continue to use this very well known expression- but not you. Ok?
My only comment about this whole damn thing was that her remaining in office "is up to Arizona and only Arizona", if they choose to replace her they can and will, if they want to keep her they can and will. You then try to point out that it isn't up to AZ, that the federal government has the authority to decide who represents their state. I don't care if 99% of the people in the country say that the federal government gets to decide if she stays or goes, I will stand by my principals and side with the people of AZ regardless of what they decide.
Suppose that the enlightened people in D.C. decided that Boehner was not a good enough representative for his district? Should he be removed even though his constituents chose him to represent them?
None of my comments took a position on her career and whether it should continue or not. Perhaps you have been reading the comments of others and projecting them onto me.
" Isn't this a premature dancing on her political grave?"
"This meaning the speculation of the post here- the removal of Giffords.
" 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. "
Sole judge.
I would remain consistant either way and say it is up to the People of that state.
, 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.”
There are many instances where even people's spouses have stepped in and taken over terms.
You can say it is up to the people- the people's will has already been counted.
SHe won.
That's it. Are you suggesting that the State has some unknown power to remove House members at will?
You flip everything that I say around to mean exactly the opposite of what I said. At this point I fingure that you are a true moron or you are just doing this to try to piss me off, either way, I am done with you.
Those are simply facts, it has nothing to do with you.
It's not up to the state- that's it.
“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.”
I'd say she should probably resign if she feels she can't do the job effectively but anyone trying to force her to should be drawn and quartered.
Why didn't conservatives employ that logic when Reagan was shot?
Sodahead is more far right than conservative in my opinion.
As I recall, New Jersey Republicans had contested the Torricelli-Lautenberg swap on the grounds that the deadline for ballot changes had long passed. I don't remember any court challenges but, if you have a link, feel free to post it.
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-...
I agree with that SodaHead is not split the way I originally stated. It's more conservative than far left in my opinion.
I didn't understand your statement related to "any liberal should trust implicitly: CNN." Was that intended as a slap against CNN or liberals. Regardless, I'd rather watch CNN than Faux News.
My method for finding news sources is to filter all news because all news sources have a bias. The problem is how strong is that bias and, frankly, Faux News is the most biased news source in the United States. Faux News has more in common with the old Pravda than it does to any legitimate news source in the United States.
"You may notice that I didn't need to resort to cutesy nicknames of the media to make my point."
No, you just resorted to a lie that Faux News is the least biased when it is, in fact, a propaganda organ of the RNC/Tea Party.
Further, I'd bet just about anything that companies like Cisco and Skype would jump at the chance to set up what ever was required to provide the necessary secure feeds.
All it would take would be a minor change to the house rules and believe me if it were presented they would best pass it or the Republican party in Arizona could kiss 2012 goodbye.
must follow the rules for fitness and time tables
Andy