Do the Laws of Massachusetts Apply to Kennedys and Dems?
One of the defining problems of the third world is unsettled succession procedures for politicians. In Honduras we have a flap over the latest politician who decides he is going to change the constitution so that he can serve forever. In Argentina, if Juan Peron was not available, Eva would do nicely. All of these shenanigans, designed to preserve the appearance of democracy while absconding with the substance of the rule of law, have been one reason the term “Banana Republic” is one of derision.
Back in the days when Communist revolution was deemed “inevitable” in Central America, earnest lefties would breathlessly prattle on about the injustices of “the five families” that ran Nicaragua (or El Salvador) (apparently three or six families lacked alliteration). No matter what occurred it was always implied darkly to be at the behest of a powerful patriarch pulling the strings in the nominally democratic country.
Now we have the spectacle of Massachusetts. Ted Kennedy now is very exercised about the succession rights to his seat. He was elected in a Special Election in 1962 to take his brother’s seat. A family retainer kept it warm for him by appointment until the special election. All of Massachusetts had to wait until such time as the Dauphin was old enough to meet the Senatorial requirement of 30 years of age.
Then came the awful time when Mitt Romney was Governor and John Kerry was running for President. The fear shot through Massachusetts that Kerry would win. Why? Well yes, he would be President but there was worse! Mitt Romney would appoint his successor, as the Governor had appointed Kennedy’s predecessor until his regency expired. Bing. Bang. Boom. In a trice, the law was changed. The Governor could no longer appoint a place holder to an unexpired term. A special election would have to be held. Senator Kerry blessedly lost and the law was forgotten.
Now Ted Kennedy, who has had every opportunity to retire and make peace with his maker during his last illness, has determined that the election procedure is inconvenient. Should he die or resign in office there might be a contested election. A Republican might win! (I don’t think so). Even so for five months the Democrats would not have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. What’s a Dauphin to do? Why change the law of course.
Do laws apply in Massachusetts? We know what the Massachusetts Supreme Court thinks of laws on the books but is the entire state willing to change its succession laws for the second time in less than five years at the behest of one party and one family? If so, is Massachusetts anything more than a Kennedy Republic; retaining the form, but having jettisoned the substance of the rule of law? Are there any rules that apply to Kennedys and Democrats at all? The Bay State now gets to decide.