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.
[Beshear:] 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.
Until Beshear sues and wins (or at least until he files a suit), I’m going to be bold enough to challenge that. The wording clearly does not support what Beshear’s saying. First, I’ll note preliminarily that the section covers all elective offices*, so this is all we need to read from:
Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, vacancies in all elective offices shall be filled by election or appointment, as follows:
* Notably, the “except as otherwise provided in this Constitution” is referring to the section on judicial vacancies. To my knowledge, these are the two sections that cover vacancies (show me I’m wrong if I am).
Next, we have a bunch of stuff covering city, town, county, district, and State offices. We can safely skip that (skip down if you think we can’t). This brings us to:
Vacancies in all offices for the State at large, or for districts larger than a county, shall be filled by appointment of the Governor; all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law.
First, “State at large” is defined in the KY Constitution (sections 69–96) and does not mean federal offices. And then it says all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law.
Microanalyzing that sentence in case you think there’s room for doubt: “as may be prescribed by law” means that the law can prescribe how the appointment is made but that a law doesn’t have to exist – where “may” is opposed to “shall”. I.e. if there is no law, which there doesn’t have to be, do whatever the fuck you want, but if there is one, follow it.
The obvious reason other governors were appointing their choices is because there was no law in place to say otherwise, and “may” meant there didn’t have to be one until Republicans decided to ratfuck Beshear.
Lastly, if he’s trying to assert that “state offices” cover federal ones, I mean, good luck, I guess. That’s a dumb, ad hoc argument that’s likely to fail given there’s literally a section that differentiates between State office and Federal office.
If the governor himself™ actually sues, then fair game, and we’ll see who wins. Otherwise, dead serious: I think he’s completely misreading the law and Republicans are correct on this – not morally, of course, but legally. I invite you to read the linked section and point out where I’m wrong.
TL;DR:
The section covers all elected offices (with judicial being the exception).
It spends a bunch of time covering city, town, county, district, and State offices (incl. a special excerpt for “State at large”, which per the KY Constitution is not federal).
It then says “all other offices” may be prescribed by law.
I’m going to be ballsy enough to say this: if you can read this plain English and still take Beshear’s word on it, that’s fine, but it’s strictly an argument from authority. Andy Beshear’s word is not a legal consensus that there’s ambiguity. Please, read it for yourself and try to challenge me based on what it says.
(Didn’t downvote you, btw; I appreciate you linking this.)
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.
Until Beshear sues and wins (or at least until he files a suit), I’m going to be bold enough to challenge that. The wording clearly does not support what Beshear’s saying. First, I’ll note preliminarily that the section covers all elective offices*, so this is all we need to read from:
* Notably, the “except as otherwise provided in this Constitution” is referring to the section on judicial vacancies. To my knowledge, these are the two sections that cover vacancies (show me I’m wrong if I am).
Next, we have a bunch of stuff covering city, town, county, district, and State offices. We can safely skip that (skip down if you think we can’t). This brings us to:
First, “State at large” is defined in the KY Constitution (sections 69–96) and does not mean federal offices. And then it says all other appointments shall be made as may be prescribed by law.
Microanalyzing that sentence in case you think there’s room for doubt: “as may be prescribed by law” means that the law can prescribe how the appointment is made but that a law doesn’t have to exist – where “may” is opposed to “shall”. I.e. if there is no law, which there doesn’t have to be, do whatever the fuck you want, but if there is one, follow it.
The obvious reason other governors were appointing their choices is because there was no law in place to say otherwise, and “may” meant there didn’t have to be one until Republicans decided to ratfuck Beshear.
Lastly, if he’s trying to assert that “state offices” cover federal ones, I mean, good luck, I guess. That’s a dumb, ad hoc argument that’s likely to fail given there’s literally a section that differentiates between State office and Federal office.
If the governor himself™ actually sues, then fair game, and we’ll see who wins. Otherwise, dead serious: I think he’s completely misreading the law and Republicans are correct on this – not morally, of course, but legally. I invite you to read the linked section and point out where I’m wrong.
TL;DR:
I’m going to be ballsy enough to say this: if you can read this plain English and still take Beshear’s word on it, that’s fine, but it’s strictly an argument from authority. Andy Beshear’s word is not a legal consensus that there’s ambiguity. Please, read it for yourself and try to challenge me based on what it says.
(Didn’t downvote you, btw; I appreciate you linking this.)