John McCain hasn’t returned to Washington because of flu concerns, his daughter says

[Right_in_Virginia]

John McCain hasn’t returned to Washington because of flu concerns, his daughter says
Washington Post, Feb 8, 2018, Alex Horton

Sen. John McCain’s return to Washington during key legislative deliberations has been curbed in part by concerns over the deadly flu season, his daughter Meghan said Wednesday.

In an interview with Politico’s “Women Rule” podcast, the Arizona Republican’s daughter said her father, recovering from chemotherapy for aggressive brain cancer and a viral infection in December, is taking precautions that are keeping him in Arizona.

“Part of the problem, too, is like it’s this deadly, crazy flu season,” said Meghan McCain, a co-host of “The View” on ABC. “And his immune system is so down, everybody is worried about him getting the flu.” This flu season could be the worst in a decade, with 12,000 confirmed hospitalizations since the fall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a report for the week ending Jan. 20.

McCain added that her father undergoes physical therapy at his cabin outside Sedona, focusing on his mobility following a tear in each Achilles’ tendon.


More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2018/02/08/john-mccain-hasnt-returned-to-washington-because-of-flu-concerns-his-daughter-says/?utm_term=.daa18019aeb7

[Right_in_Virginia]

If not for the 17th Amendment the Arizona statehouse could repeal and replace both McCain and Flake.

[edpc]

If not for the 17th Amendment the Arizona statehouse could repeal and replace both McCain and Flake.

I used to think so, too, but unfortunately, no.  There never was a constitutional provision for recall.

But the U.S. Constitution allows for the removal of a senator or representative only by a two-thirds vote from either house, and usually only in the case of treason or a criminal conviction relating to that Congressperson’s official duties.

There was a provision considered while the Founding Fathers were writing the constitution in 1787 that would have allowed for the recall of members of Congress, but it was not included in the final version.

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/politics/despite-circulating-petitions-us-constitution-does-not-allow-for-recall-of-members-of-congress

[Frank Cannon]

Bet a dollar McLame is in a coma an the Deep State is using him like Weekend at Bernies to vote and comment on stuff.

[240B]

Bet a dollar McLame is in a coma an the Deep State is using him like Weekend at Bernies to vote and comment on stuff.

Yep. One would think that McConnell would be interested in McCain's current situation. But, we haven't heard a thing about it. Somebody, his daughter, his staff, Schumer, the deep state, is doing McCain's job in his stead. How this can be ignored by D.C. is amazing. I mean they should be at least curious who is saying and doing all this stuff in McCain's name.

The fact that there has been no press release about McCain's health is telling. Nothing at all. Just stone silence. And we are all expected to take it on faith that he is, as Congress said, 'recovering'.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I used to think so, too, but unfortunately, no.  There never was a constitutional provision for recall.

But the U.S. Constitution allows for the removal of a senator or representative only by a two-thirds vote from either house, and usually only in the case of treason or a criminal conviction relating to that Congressperson’s official duties.

There was a provision considered while the Founding Fathers were writing the constitution in 1787 that would have allowed for the recall of members of Congress, but it was not included in the final version.

Why would a provision be included in the US constitutiona for the removal of Senators before the 17th Amendment?   The selection of Senators was solely the purview of state officials ... wouldn't it also be up to the States  to determine removal?

[edpc]

Why would a  US constitutional provision be necessary for the removal of Senators before the 17th Amendment?   The selection of Senators was solely the purview of state officials ... wouldn't it also be up to the States  to determine removal

It only gave the framework for their appointment, not for their removal.  Time was, the constitutional process was followed.  Even during the Civil War, they followed House and Senate procedures for expulsion.

[Suppressed]

Even during the Civil War, they followed House and Senate procedures for expulsion.

To my knowledge, they did not, by their own accounting.  If the Confederate states were still part of the US (the fiction they maintained), then Congress couldn't meet quorum.  They just ignored that.

[Right_in_Virginia]

It only gave the framework for their appointment, not for their removal.  Time was, the constitutional process was followed.  Even during the Civil War, they followed House and Senate procedures for expulsion.

I think if this had ever been challenged, the States would have won. 

But it doesn't matter .... the 17th Amendment was one of the biggest mistakes made ... and in the name of "democracy".   

[edpc]

I think if this had ever been challenged, the States would have won. 

But it doesn't matter .... the 17th Amendment was one of the biggest mistakes made ... and in the name of "democracy".   

A lot of people on both sides agree the 17th was a mistake.  One reason it was proposed was due to the fact Senate seats were being bought with influence buying in state legislatures.  It was thought direct election would make it more difficult.

You know what they say about the road paved with good intentions, I'm sure.

[WingNot]

The next time John comes to Washington DC it will be to Lie In State.

[edpc]

The next time John comes to Washington DC it will be to Lie In State.

If he makes it to spring, I wouldn't rule out a self-serving 'triumphant return.'  Watch him try it in the middle of cherry blossom season for juxtaposition.

[WingNot]

If he makes it to spring, I wouldn't rule out a self-serving 'triumphant return.'

Easter is Lily season.  I give him till then.

[anubias]

The next time John comes to Washington DC it will be to Lie In State.

ISWYDT.  Your statement is true regardless of whether the Maverick is tits up or not.   

[WingNot]

ISWYDT.  Your statement is true regardless of whether the Maverick is tits up or not.   

I was hoping someone would catch that second meaning!

 

[anubias]

 

[Right_in_Virginia]

A lot of people on both sides agree the 17th was a mistake.  One reason it was proposed was due to the fact Senate seats were being bought with influence buying in state legislatures.  It was thought direct election would make it more difficult.

You know what they say about the road paved with good intentions, I'm sure.

I do.   ^-^