Tuesday, August 18, 2009

I Lost My Vote in Congress Because My Senator is Sick

The Boston Globe has an article Maine Senator Snowe gets gentle treatment on health care. It describes how Snowe is a swing voter on healthcare reform and is avoiding ideological lines. But this is what struck me...

"Snowe is one of three Republicans on the powerful Senate Finance Committee trying to work out a bipartisan deal. And based on her voting record, she is the most likely of the trio to break from the GOP and vote with Senate Democrats - who may need at least one Republican to get a bill passed, especially if Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, is unable to travel to Washington and cast a vote in the fall."

I understand one of my Senators is sick and I hope he gets better soon. I understand during his treatment he might not be able to travel, but why in this age of communication technology does he need to travel to DC to cast his vote? 200 years ago, sure, but now? Why do I lose representation in the Senate (for months) because of this? Massachusetts requires a special election to fill a mid-term vacancy, but why can't a Senator establish a proxy to vote for him during his illness? One of his aids answers his phone and speaks for him when I call.

Article II Section 6 of the Constitution says "They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."

That's some travel policy; immunity from arrest while at work and while commuting! I don't know what the last clause means. They can't be questioned about their speeches except in Congress? Do journalists know this? Is this what all the uproar at town halls is about? People just want to make sure congressional members aren't questioned outside of Congress?

Update: Not the same but a related problem Kennedy seems be trying to fix things: Ailing Kennedy Asks For Speedy Replacement Process. "Kennedy’s letter acknowledges the state changed its succession law in 2004 to require a special election be held 145 to 160 days after the vacancy. At the time, legislative Democrats – with a wide majority in both chambers – were concerned because then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney had the power to directly fill any vacancy created as Democratic Sen. John Kerry ran for president."

2 comments:

DKB said...

I have always taken that phrase to mean that they can't be held civilly or criminally liable for what they say in the chamber during a session. I suppose if they said something egregious or seditious they could be tried by Congress itself, the stricture is only against them being "questioned" about it outside of Congress.

Howard said...

Makes sense. A narrow reading of "questioned".