Look, I’m no expert in Kentucky law, but I do know you’re not representing this fully. The consensus among lawyers when interviewed on this matter in the press is that there’s legal ambiguity, and good case can be made for both points. I don’t understand it fully myself, but it’s obviously not as cut and dry as you’re pretending.
All I’ve done is link to the relevant section of the Kentucky Constitution and (in my other comment) explain what it says. If you think any part of that section is ambiguous, if you think my interpretation is wrong in some specific way, if you’d like to cite some other relevant portion of the Kentucky Constitution I’m not considering, or especially if you’d like to provide any citation to the counterarguments of “lawyers interviewed on this matter”, I invite that.
But right now, I’m looking at the section of the Kentucky Constitution that provides for replacements of vacant offices, and not only do I see nothing that would bar the KGA from making this law, I see broad, affirmative, plain-English authority given to them to do exactly that.
I’m not trying to hoodwink you with half-truths; I know of literally no other information that would weigh on whether or not the Kentucky Constitution enables the General Assembly to prescribe the means of appointment. I don’t know what to do with “you’re not representing this fully” and a vague allusion to some alleged legal consensus when I’m representing it as fully as I know how.
Beshear argued those laws may conflict with the Kentucky Constitution.
“It says I appoint all state officers when there’s a vacancy. The question is, does that apply to federal offices? Well, before there was ever a law in Kentucky on how this would work, multiple appointments were made by governors, assumingly under that provision,” he said.
Again, you’re clearly missing something here if the governor himself is claiming the power to fill vacancies by appointment.
That law is unconstitutional. The Kentucky constitution says the governor can just appoint a replacement.
As I pointed out in another comment: the Kentucky Constitution does not say this.
Any vacancy not covered (which in the Kentucky Constitution’s case are city, town, county, district, State) is filled as “prescribed by law”.
Look, I’m no expert in Kentucky law, but I do know you’re not representing this fully. The consensus among lawyers when interviewed on this matter in the press is that there’s legal ambiguity, and good case can be made for both points. I don’t understand it fully myself, but it’s obviously not as cut and dry as you’re pretending.
All I’ve done is link to the relevant section of the Kentucky Constitution and (in my other comment) explain what it says. If you think any part of that section is ambiguous, if you think my interpretation is wrong in some specific way, if you’d like to cite some other relevant portion of the Kentucky Constitution I’m not considering, or especially if you’d like to provide any citation to the counterarguments of “lawyers interviewed on this matter”, I invite that.
But right now, I’m looking at the section of the Kentucky Constitution that provides for replacements of vacant offices, and not only do I see nothing that would bar the KGA from making this law, I see broad, affirmative, plain-English authority given to them to do exactly that.
I’m not trying to hoodwink you with half-truths; I know of literally no other information that would weigh on whether or not the Kentucky Constitution enables the General Assembly to prescribe the means of appointment. I don’t know what to do with “you’re not representing this fully” and a vague allusion to some alleged legal consensus when I’m representing it as fully as I know how.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/andy-beshear-threatens-legal-fight-over-mitch-mcconnell-senate-replacement/ar-AA27UPl2
I’m not sure how you haven’t head about this.
Again, you’re clearly missing something here if the governor himself is claiming the power to fill vacancies by appointment.