brownworcester011710-600x448

Crowds show support for Brown

Remember when Paul Kirk said that he would vote for Obamacare if Brown wins the special election in Mass?   Well it turns out he can’t.  Fred Barnes:

“Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys.

Kirk has vowed to vote for the Democratic bill even if Republican Scott Brown is elected but not yet certified by state officials and officially seated in the Senate. Kirk’s vote is crucial because without the 60 votes necessary to stop a Republican filibuster, the bill will be defeated.

This would be a devastating loss for President Obama and congressional Democrats. The bill, dubbed ObamaCare, is the centerpiece of the president’s agenda. Brown has campaigned on becoming the 41st vote against ObamaCare.

But in the days after the election, it is Kirk’s status that matters, not Brown’s. Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.” The vacancy occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy died in August. Kirk was picked as interim senator by Governor Deval Patrick.

Democrats in Massachusetts have talked about delaying Brown’s “certification,” should he defeat Democrat Martha Coakley on Tuesday. Their aim would be to allow Kirk to remain in the Senate and vote the health care bill.

But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period. Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate. “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

An appointed senator’s right to vote is not dependent on whether his successor has been certified, the lawyers said. In Massachusetts, the election of a senator must be certified by the governor, the governor’s council, and the secretary of state – all of them Democrats.

If Brown wins narrowly and a recount is being conducted, Democratic lawyers might claim that he hasn’t been “duly elected.” Republican attorneys believe, however, that a candidate has actually been elected, though it won’t be clear who that is until the recount is completed. In Massachusetts, a recount can occur if the margin of victory is less than half a percent of the total vote.”

You’ll remember that I said if the Democrats try to vote before Brown would be seated the GOP would have a good case in court. It now seems like a slam dunk case. Brown now leads Coakley by four to five percentage points. Overall the voter enthusiasm seems far more intense for Brown than Coakley. In fact Glenn Reynolds notes:

“A REPORT FROM THE SCOTT BROWN RALLY AT WORCESTER: “It’s an absolute mob scene. The police have closed off the streets. It’s mind blowing. The hall is already full, and it holds 3,000 people. There may be another 1,000 people outside.”

Meanwhile, reader Sean Fitzpatrick writes: “Pictures don’t do justice. Nothing like this in Mass since JFK. Worcester rally starts in thirty minutes and the streets are already packed.”

Obama’s hail-mary visit to help Coakley today didn’t do much to stop the blood-letting.  If Brown wins Obamacare is dead – period. Dems can try the “nuclear option” but I’ve got a feeling that Coakley’s loss has more than just the passing effect on congressional dems up for reelection in Nov. Truth is I see mass defections.

Technorati Tags:
, , , , ,