Friday, August 28, 2009

In Massachusetts, the Rule of Law Dies

It seems the prodigious Senator Ted Kennedy can manifest political quagmires from beyond the grave. The following post comes from the Cato Institute, an organization I admire. What you will read is a primary example of how politicians care little for the average citizen, the will of the people, and rule of law. To me, the Democratic party is the most dangerous political organization to our Republic.










In Massachusetts, the Rule of Law Dies



by Daniel Griswold


Lawmakers in the Bay State are rushing to change state law to make sure the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat is filled as soon as possible with a reliable Democratic successor.

Never mind that as recently as 2004 the same state legislature had changed state law to mandate that a vacant Senate seat could only be filled by a special election to be held within five months of the vacancy.

Before then, as in most other states, vacancies were filled by an appointment of the governor, with the seat coming up for a vote at the next federal election. But in 2004, the Democratic legislature changed the law to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, from naming a Republican to replace Democratic Sen. John Kerry if he were to be elected president. Kerry lost to George W. Bush, but the law remained on the books.

That was then; now is now. With Democrats in Washington wanting to maintain their 60-vote caucus in the Senate, a five-month delay to let the people of Massachusetts actually vote on who will replace Kennedy has become an intolerable roadblock to progress. According to a report from Bloomberg News this morning, the Democratically-dominated legislature in Massachusetts is about to change the law back to allow the now-Democratic governor to appoint a successor within a month.

This is a textbook example of how politicians routinely ignore The Rule of Law in pursuit of political aims.

In his book, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich Hayek devoted an entire chapter to the importance of the rule of law to a free society. “Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles know as the Rule of Law,” Hayek wrote. He defined the phrase to mean “that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand,” and not subject to be changed arbitrarily depending on circumstances.

The Bloomberg story contained a less scholarly but equally sound critique of what is going on in Massachusetts: “It shows Democrats don’t care about principle,” said Massachusetts House Minority Leader Bradley Jones, a North Reading Republican. “They don’t care about debate. They don’t care about the rules. It really is disgusting.”














In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer,
The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, read
some articles, and post some comments. Thank you
.

5 comments:

Matt said...

It's hilarious that the MSM is covering this in such glowing terms, when it is really nothing more than a power play.

edgycater said...

Statists believe that their objectives are so important that the means of achieving them are irrelevant. In neither case was Ted Kennedy concerned about what was most important for a fair electoral process. Both changes were purely partisan which, by the way, would be a great title for a biography of Teddy ("Purely Partisan: Chappaquiddick and Beyond").

Joe Markowitz said...

I thought it was up to the state legislature to decide how to fill vacant Senate seats. So if they could pass a law saying that seats are filled by special elections, why can't they pass another law saying they can fill the seat by interim appointment by the governor? The only way that would violate the rule of law would be if there were some state or federal constitutional requirement, or federal statute, preventing such an action.

Harrison said...

I read about this the other day. To think the double standard that is applied by the Democrats! And how our press lets us down by not reporting on it! The MA gov. may get things changed but it will leave a bitter taste in voters' mouths. Will that go unreported as well?

Conservative Scalawag said...

Like many have said, the double standard is over looked when applied to liberals, and I believe the rule of law died in Massachusetts a lot longer than just this week.