Would Kerry step down from his Senate seat?

[phillybri]

As I understand it, Romney would get to name a replacement, so it wouldn't be wise.

Please correct me if I'm wrong here...

[LandOLincoln]

1. He'll have to. You can't be a Senator

and President at the same time, can you?

[progressiveBadger]

2. Pretty sure no.

Kinda defeats the purpose of checks and balances... not to mention if it WAS possible, I'm sure the neo-cons would have already tried it.

[genius]

7. If it's not expressly forbidden, he should stay

I'm going to take another look at the Constitution. There would still be checks and balances as he's only one person in the Senate. Any loophole we can use to keep the thugs from keeping the Senate is worth it.

[tritsofme]

8. Don't be ridiculous,

Kerry would never stay in the Senate, even if he could, once he is in the WH.

It spits in the face of the whole concept of the seperation of powers.

If such a thing was even seriously contemplated by him, there is no way he could get my vote.

[NewJerseyDem]

21. It violates Senate rules

The senate rules prohibit a member from holding another job where they may have a conflict of interest with their job in congress. I certainly think the presidency presents a conflict of interest when overriding vetoes or voting to convict and remove from office.

It would be unconstitutional as well.

[phillybri]

3. I mean BEFORE the election...

Obviously he can't hold both positions, but would he step down to focus solely on campaigning?

[JI7]

6. he is already focusing on campaigning mostly

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. I think the original poster meant before the election

Bob Dole did in 1996, but he had a Republican governor to name his replacement. Kerry doesn't have the luxury.

On the other hand, the GOP may make his absences an issue. They could also schedule important votes at inconvenient times, and could bring up bills for a vote that may may make him look bad.

It's a classic damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

[rmjohnston]

9. Agreed -- We Can Take An Issue Away From The GOP Here

I think Kerry should resign his Senate seat to campaign full-time.

Personally, I think that the Republicans will either:

a) Continue to beat Kerry over the head for missing Senate business;

b) Schedule important votes when they know that Kerry can't attend.

If he resign, it takes away a HUGE issue from the GOP.

Just my $0.02 :)

I also put my response on Brian's site for comment.

[Null Pointer]

10. Agreed, especially

when Bush asks Congress for several more billion dollars to send over to Iraq. If he votes for it, he's a Flip-Flopper because he voted against the last one. If he doesn't vote for it then he's Not Supporting Our Troops. If he's not in the Senate, then that's not a problem and it shows the voters that he's confident that he'll win (unlike Lieberman in 2000)

[rmjohnston]

11. Exactly!

The GOP has put Kerry in a dilemma where any vote he casts can (and will) be used against him.

By resigning, it will:

a) Get John *some* goodwill in the press
b) STOP the GOP from trying to tar him with ANY vote he casts

Also, I disagree about the "balance of power" in the Senate issue raised above. It's not like, if Romney appoints an "R", that control will change hands. The effect on policy will be nominal. Besides, if the GOP gets one appointed seat in MA, it will

a) Make citizens of MA mad, because they did not vote to send a GOP Senator to the Senate
b) Probably get Romney booted in the next election
c) The appointee will lose to a Democrat in the next election as well.

So, the net result is:

a) Media goodwill
b) Halt further GOP attacks on John's votes
c) Get a Dem elected Gov of MA
d) Get another Dem back in the Senate

Net, net, it is a win-win situation for us if he resigns his seat. It will also show that he cares (and is serious) about winning (and his prospects for winning).

Whew!!! My head is spinning :)

[Caution]

4. He will not step down unless he wins

In which case under current MA law romeny gets to pick his successor. There is already a movement in MA to change this law prior to the election.

[jsanteramo]

12. The current MA law is ridiculous

Romeny should NOT be able to pick his sucessor. If Kerry chooses to step down so he can campaign full time, he should be allowed to choose his sucessor!

[rmjohnston]

13. Yes and No

While, in theory, I agree, in practice (and reality) I don't think it makes a tangible difference -- especially considering that a good balance of the legislative session has already lapsed.

[jsanteramo]

14. Probably right

On second thought... you're probably right.

[ISUGRADIA]

15. This isn't MA law

The US Constitution gives Governors the right to name Senators when a seat is vacant.

[NewJerseyDem]

20. No, it doesn't

The 17th amendment authorizes the legislatures to empower the governor to appoint a successor. However, the legislature has the option of leaving the choice solely to the people.

[NewJerseyDem]

19. Then you should like Dana Rohrabacher's constitutional amendment

That would allow a candidate for congress to prepare a list of successor in the event that he should have to leave office.

[Hippo_Tron]

16. On the hypothetical of somebody being President + Senator...

I belive there's a cluase in the constitution that says that you can't work for two branches of government, or maybe they made that up on The West Wing. Would be kinda funny if VP got to be a senator at the same time and got to cast two votes.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Bad idea, if Kerry looses we need him in the senate

If the Republicans want to attack Kerry for missing votes, fine. We can attack Bush for neglecting his duties as President. Secondly, Kerry is a great senator and it would be nice for him to stay in public service rather than fade out like Gore has. Third, if the unthinkable happens and Kerry looses, we need EVERY democratic senator we can get to fight off Bush's fascist agenda and extremist judges.

[rmjohnston]

18. That's a very myopic analysis

Think outside the box.

[drfemoe]

22. hehe

like the 'box' you're wearing?? :P