Senator Theodore Bilbo (D-MS): The Last Senator Denied Credentials

Men for Palin Blog ^ | December 30, 2008 | W. T. Howes

[Charlie Fairbanks]

overnor Blagojevich is at it again! He has defied his own party and appointed a successor to President-elect Barack H. Obama in the United States Senate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has already announces that the Senate would not seat the new nominee, which raised the question, when was the last time that the United States Senate refused to seat an elected Senator. According to U.S. Senate historians, the last time was in 1947, when a coalition of Republicans and Northern Democrats refused to seat Hon. Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi (pictured left). Senator Bilbo was a real character of the game. Let’s turn back the clock and take a look at this little piece of historic irony.

[Charlie Fairbanks]

What an irony! The last time the United States Senate refused to seat a legally elected or appointed Senator was in 1947, when the Republican-controlled body refused to seat arch-segregationist Senator Theodore G. Bilbo. Ironic? Sure. Senator Bilbo must be absolutely spinning in his grave with the knowledge that America has elected its first Black President. However, that old devil must also be chuckling because the man who is being blocked 62 years after he was blocked is Black. Theodore Bilbo was one of the most colorful Southern politicians of the twentieth century. He was one of a new breed of populists (or demoagogues, depending on your point of view) who rose up in the dirt poor deep South. Bilbo was always controversial. As a state senator he was involved in a bribery scandal connected to - ironically - the appointment of a new United States Senator. In the years before direct election of United States Senators, the Mississippi Legislature was set to select a new one. The multi-candidate field was deadlocked through several ballots in the legislature until several legislators changed their votes and resolved the race. The next day, Bilbo claimed to have been bribed by the victor. No one was ever charged or indicted or convicted in the scandal. However, Bilbo was impeached by the State Senate. He was not convicted. Despite the scandal, Bilbo was elected Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi. He served there, then as Governor and eventually a United States Senator. Bilbo was an avowed segregationist and an admitted member of the Ku Klux Klan (an honor he shares with his fellow Democrat, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia). In the Senate, he sponsored bills providing appropriations for the relocation of African-Americans to West Africa. He penned a book entitled, Take Your Choice, Separation or Mongrelization, in which he explained the proposition. He publicly stated that he believed that Blacks should not vote. He filibustered an anti-lynching bill in the United States Senate. Bilbo was later eulogized as a “redneck liberal” for his shameless pandering to poor rural white folk and his support for the New Deal. He was such a figure that he has a namesake in William Faulkner’s fictional Yoknawpatawpha County - Bilbo Snopes. Theodore Bilbo died in 1947 of mouth cancer.

[the invisib1e hand]

some thoughts:

Formatting is nice.

I always say life is like a really bad movie, and that the line between fantasy and reality is being blurred by the media and entertainment industries (well, for that matter, and government too). Now we're starting to see people named after the characters.

[Clintonfatigued]

This is ironic. Theodore Bilbo was perhaps the most loathsome demagogue ever to serve in the United States Senate. He disgraced every institution he ever served in. Wherever he is right now, I hope he got to watch the election this year. As much as I dislike Obama in the White House, it would be just deserts for Bilbo to see how discredited he is.

[montag813]

It is very unlikely that the Senate can refuse to seat Senator Burris. Looks to me that Dingy Harry will lose this one in court.

Some discussion on the issue...

Can The Senate Really Refuse To Seat Blago's Appointment?
Can U.S. Senate Refuse to Seat Burris?

[We Dare Defend Our Rights]

I Ted Kennedy was a Senator. I think murder out weighs any of the Mississippi Senators beliefs, which were the same as Byrd of WVA, he was just more public with his

[Tanniker Smith]

Well, they couldn't seat that other senator, not will all of Bilbo's baggage....

Karl Rove was on H&C before saying that Reid has no authority not to seat him. He'd have to expel him with a 2/3 vote. We shall see.

[cripplecreek]

I’m just giggling like a little girl over this.

[Clintonfatigued]

My guess on this is that Senate Democrats are on their own on this. If Republicans are smart, they will stay out of this.

[muawiyah]

Article V......"and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

Harry Reid is not bigger than the Constitution.

[freekitty]

Anyone that would believe or listen to that pasty little panty waist, Reid, has some head problems.

[Ukiapah Heep]

That's what she said.

[yongin]

If Reid wants a vote on whether to seat Burris, Republican Senators should follow the Messiah’s example - vote present.

[Sherman Logan]

Bilbo was a senator? Was that before or after he found the Ring?

[Congressman Billybob]

I just posted the answer to this question. If Harry Reid handled the matter correctly (a 50-50 shot). Burris will lose and will never be seated.

John / Billybob

[Procyon]

Article V......"and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

But see: Article I, Section 5, Clause 1:

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ..."

The Supreme Court, in Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597, 615 (1929) held that refusal to permit a person presenting credentials in due form to take the oath of office does not deprive the State which elected such person of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Dingy Harry Reid is on solid grounds.

[muawiyah]

He's still gotta' have a vote. The question posed is resolved with a 2/3 majority.

Harry imagines he can simply ignore Blago's nominee, but the Constitution does not support him on that.

[hunter112]

Article V......"and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

True, but of course, the Constitution is silent about the Democratic Party Caucus. They could refuse to make him a member of that caucus (this is what they threatened Lieberman with), but the effects on black America would be the very same as turning him away at the door.

The juicy part of this is yet to come, at some point, Barry will be asked to give a definitive opinion on this. He sided with letting Lieberman rejoin the Caucus, how can he turn his back on a brotha from his own state?!!

If he waffles on this, look for a return of the "he's not black enough" stuff that Oprah put to rest a year ago.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“If Republicans are smart, ....”

Going by what I’ve read on Free Republic — that’s a big “If”.

[TBP]

The Senate can refuse to seat a member if it s chooses. Like the House, it is the final arbiter of its own members.

[El Gato]

Article V......"and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate"

That was violated when the 17th amendment was passed. The entire section is dealing with amendments, the clause deals with non allowable amendments to the Constitution:

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate