Article

2011-05-03 Home Front: WoT

Sen. Scott Brown to Afghanistan for his Nat'l Guard training

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2011-05-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top

#1 That little problem with the Constitution.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office. - Art I, Section 6

To go to Afghanistan he would have to be 'activated' by federal authority and as such would hold a second federal office with the commission of LTC. Of course in a 'living breathing' interpretation, he could, but by strict constructionist/originalism interpretation, no.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-05-03 08:46|| 2011-05-03 08:46|| Front Page Top

#2 ..don't get me wrong. I support the old Roman practice of sending senators out with the 'legions'. It's great quality assurance in making sure the troops get the training and equipment they need, since the senators' butts are on the line as well. It's sort of like making parachute packers randomly pull one of their products and having to jump with it.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-05-03 08:49|| 2011-05-03 08:49|| Front Page Top

#3 Parachutes, riggers, lawyers.....? Brings some interesting concepts to mind.

Posted by Besoeker 2011-05-03 08:52|| 2011-05-03 08:52|| Front Page Top

#4 Proco - would military activation qualify as 'appointment' for Constitutional purposes? And would military office qualify as 'civil Office?'
It's not clear to me (but IANAL) that there is any Constitutional problem with Sen. Brown's plan.

Posted by Glenmore 2011-05-03 11:34|| 2011-05-03 11:34|| Front Page Top

#5 As the say, follow the money. While on active duty in Afghanistan he will be on DoD's payroll, not Massachusetts. It won't even be 'laundered' through the state. Common term used is 'federalized' for duty, particularly in an overseas assignment. He will be in an office - commissioned officer. Had he done his duty in state, or through compact agreement with another state [disaster relief, joint training, etc], and the pay coming from Boston, then it wouldn't be a issue.

Posted by Procopius2k 2011-05-03 13:46|| 2011-05-03 13:46|| Front Page Top

#6 Precedent is Graham of SC took a leave of absence from the Senate technically vacating his seat for the time he was active duty.

Posted by The Other Beldar 2011-05-03 15:37|| 2011-05-03 15:37|| Front Page Top

00:00 gorb
23:56 gorb
23:51 JosephMendiola
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:25 Zebulon Thranter9685
23:07 JosephMendiola
22:59 Lumpy Elmoluck5091
22:59 JosephMendiola
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:42 CrazyFool
22:37 Frank G
22:19 European Conservative
21:48 Lumpy Elmoluck5091
21:32 Frank G
21:28 JosephMendiola
21:22 Willy
21:12 tu3031
21:07 gorb
21:07 JohnQC
21:06 JosephMendiola
21:05 gorb
21:04 tu3031