I prefer to wait until 2008 when we don’t need him anymore. Then we can kick him to the curb. I don’t want to lose the subpoena power in the Senate.

http://politicalinsider.com/2007/02/lieber…

Lieberman Switch Wouldn’t Flip Senate

With Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) publicly stating he’d consider becoming a Republican if Democrats block new funding for the Iraq War, many Democrats worry that control of the Senate hangs in the balance. However, their fears are unfounded. Many think back to 2001 when former Sen. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) began caucusing with Democrats instead of Republicans, taking control of the Senate out of GOP hands. However, the two situations – though outwardly similar – contain one important difference.

If Lieberman were to caucus with the Republicans, they would still not take full control of the Senate, despite Vice President Dick Cheney’s ability to break 50-50 ties. This is because of a little-known Senate organizing resolution, passed in January, which gives Democrats control of the Senate and committee chairmanships until the beginning of the 111th Congress.

What’s the difference between now and 2001? A small but important distinction. When the 107th Congress was convened on January 3, 2001, Al Gore was still the Vice President and would be for another two-and-a-half weeks. Therefore, because of the Senate’s 50-50 tie, Democrats had nominal control of the chamber when the organizing resolution came to a vote. With Dick Cheney soon to come in, however, Democrats allowed Republicans to control the Senate in return for a provision on the organizing resolution that allowed for a reorganization of the chamber if any member should switch parties, which Jeffords did five months later. There was no such clause in the current Senate’s organizing resolution.

Siun @ 40

Bravo Jane!

What worries me – a lot – is that Lieberman carries the WH message and his statement today coupled with W’s appointment of Mueller as JCOS who is known as a “watcher of Iran” suggests that we are getting closer.

I seem to recall – very clearly in fact – that this time last year, Harry Reid playing progressive hero spoke at YKOS and promised – promised – that there would be no attack on Iran without congressional authorization. Funny how we haven’t heard a peep of that recently and the no war on Iran clause got pulled from the supplemental …

So Harry – ditch Lieberman and keep your promise to us on Iran! we have very long memories!

Did not our Speaker promise a standalone floor vote on the IranWar authority when she pulled it from the supplemental bill that got vetoed? When’s that vote gonna happen, Nancy?

The vote(s) DID happen — both = FAILED…

Even Murtha who rattled off his head that he would support such a resolution voted NAY on both!

DEFAZIO Amendment “…to clarify that no previously enacted law authorizes military action against Iran. It also prohibits funding authorized by the bill or in any other act from being used to take military action against Iran without specific authorization from Congress unless there is a `national emergency created by an attack by Iran upon the United States, its territories or possessions or its armed forces’ (language taken directly from the War Powers Resolution, P.L. 93-148). Sponsor: Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] (introduced 5/16/2007) Cosponsors (None) Latest Major Action: 5/16/2007 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the DeFazio amendment (A005) Failed by recorded vote: 136 – 288 (Roll no. 365).

ROLL CALL
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll365.xml#N

ANDREWS Amendment “…to prevent funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan a contingency operation in Iran. Sponsor: Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] (introduced 5/16/2007) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 5/16/2007 House amendment not agreed to. Status: On agreeing to the Andrews amendment (A004) Failed by recorded vote: 202 – 216 (Roll no. 364).

ROLL CALL
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll364.xml#N

Same old same old.

Actually, his concerns are probably on point, the problem is he is not creative or courageous. Lieberman is a guy who seeks attention, that is it.

And what we need now is someone who can capture the imagination of what remains of the Amercian can do and spirit. And that is not Lieberman or the Clintons or Kerry or Gore.

Markinsanfran @ 187

Indeed there are: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20070608.html

An excerpt:

The easiest thing for the Governor to do may simply be to do *nothing*, i.e. make no appointment at all until an election is held.

Can he do that?

According to the linked Findlaw article, the state law that requires him to select one of three people proposed by the republican (in this case) party violates the 17th ammendment, so he could cite that violation and just not do anything. That, however, would be a relatively agressive move on his part.

(MOD NOTE: *edited to allow through spam filter)

So goes the next rumor.

Pick a refugee camp, claim it’s a terrorist camp, start another war.

Censure Joe Lieberman.

I think you made a giant leap from MY writing ‘desire for US senators to be first and foremost sympathetic to the US senate, rather than sympathetic to Israeli interests’ TO YOUR WORDS, “excoriating Israel”.
If I wanted to write those words I would have written them. Please don’t extrapolate on my words or meaning.

CTuttle @ 146

I personally think there are 17th Amend. Violations with that State law, I most definitely maybe wrong, however, I think a good argument could be made!!! Any thought from the legal eagles??? :-)

Indeed there are: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20070608.html

An excerpt:

The key provision to consider is Section 2 of the Seventeenth Amendment, an alteration of the Constitution added in 1913 to guarantee direct popular election (as distinguished from state legislative selection) of U.S. Senators. Section 2 says:

“When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”

There is a very strong textual argument that the Seventeenth Amendment prevents the Wyoming legislature from dictating the Governor’s choices in making a temporary appointment: The Amendment’s language differentiates between a state “legislature” and a state “executive” authority, and allows a state legislature not to make or constrain any temporary appointments itself, but rather only to “empower the [state] executive to make [the] appointment.”

In other words, the Amendment, by its terms, creates potential appointment power only in Governors; it does not authorize legislatures to participate in such appointment decisions, beyond simply determining whether the Governors should be allowed to make temporary appointments or not.

The easiest thing for the Governor to do may simply be to do *nothing*, i.e. make no appointment at all until an election is held.

Can he do that?