David Paterson is feeling quite a bit of heat from his bungled Senate appointment across the board, save for Schumer and his new Senator Gillibrand. Whether or not Gillibrand was the right choice or not, Paterson must agree that the whole appointment process did not go so well and that his popularity suffered for it and more importantly his chances of getting a primary appointment next year have increased. If he wants a little saving grace, the Governor might want to get behind Senator Russ Feingold's plan to introduce a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
From Senator Feingold:
The entire post is worth a read and makes for a worthy case to end the system of Senate appointments once and for all. The seventeenth amendment made direct elections of Senators possible and the 28th shall finish the job. While this is Senator Feingold's initiative, that should not stop all of the prinicipal actors of the last few months (Gov. Paterson, Sen. Gillibrand, Gov. Ritter, Sen. Bennet, whoever replaces Blagojevich and Sen. Burris) from taking bold positions and standing with Russ on this. Not only will it have to pass the Congress, but three-quarters of the State Legislatures as well. Paterson should redeem himself for the circus he helped create by doing away with the gubernatorial selection of Senators.
Over the past several months, our country has witnessed controversies surrounding appointments to vacant Senate seats by governors. The vacancies in Illinois and New York have made for riveting political theater, but lost in the seemingly endless string of press conferences and surprise revelations is the basic fact that the citizens of these states have had no say in who should represent them in the Senate. The same is true of the recent selections in Delaware and Colorado. That is why I will introduce a constitutional amendment this week to end gubernatorial appointments to the U.S. Senate and require special elections to fill these vacancies, as is currently required for House vacancies. As Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I plan to hold a hearing on this amendment soon.
I do not make this proposal lightly. In fact, I have opposed dozens of constitutional amendments during my time in the Senate, particularly those that would have interfered with the Bill of Rights. The Constitution should not be treated like a rough draft. Constitutional amendments should be considered only when a statutory remedy to a problem is not available, and when the impact of the issue at hand on the structure of our government, the safety, welfare, or freedoms of our citizens, or the survival of our democratic republic is so significant that an amendment is warranted. This is such a case.
|