Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LexBaird

Let me restate my comment a bit. Other than in the case of a death Congress decides who will be seated. And, yes, it theoretically could refuse to seat a winner. We may see this in a Florida race with the RATS refusing to seat a Republican House seat winner. There is NO vacancy without a resignation or death. Rather the Senate would have to decide that Johnson is "qualified" to be a Senator.

So it could decide that a comatose Johnson is qualified.

I see no constitutional power to force the Senate to do anything wrt a member. And it could expel the opposition with 67 votes however, it would have to keep doing this as the States affected would immediately re-appoint the same or another Senator.

Adam Clayton Powell was thrown out of the House and was quickly re-elected by his Harlem district. Eventually the House knuckled under and seated him.


74 posted on 01/03/2007 12:09:05 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies ]


To: justshutupandtakeit
There is NO vacancy without a resignation or death. Rather the Senate would have to decide that Johnson is "qualified" to be a Senator.

That's one interpretation. But the Constitution doesn't say "resignation or death". It says "resignation or otherwise" constitutes a vacancy. In any case involving a State AND the interpretation of the Constitution, the USSC has jurisdiction. If it were to interpret "otherwise" to include incapacity, then the seat would be vacant, Johnson would cease instantly being a Senator, and the Senate would have no jurisdiction regarding who was next appointed. They could, however, refuse to seat whomever that was.

I see no constitutional power to force the Senate to do anything wrt a member. And it could expel the opposition with 67 votes however, it would have to keep doing this as the States affected would immediately re-appoint the same or another Senator.

Exactly. IOW, you would have to argue that the Founders intended there to be a stalemate situation inherent in the clause that would allow a 2/3rds majority to seize the legislature and enforce their coup. A more reasonable interpretation is that the expelling clause is directly related to the preceding clause: "Each House may ... punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." [emphasis added]. Especially when you add that the Constitution guarantees equal suffrage to the States, which the above scenario would violate.

77 posted on 01/03/2007 1:07:50 PM PST by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson