Memphis judge blocks Senate from removing Ford [Ophelia accuses TN Senate of racism]

Memphis Commercial Appeal ^ | 1-18-2006 | Rick Locker

[Terein]

Hey there Untenured...

Thank gawd I am not a lawyer since while in college, I read my room mate's law texts as a sedative when I had trouble sleeping, but that is off the point!

From your brief description of POWELL and the threed's headline, I have the impression that "racism" per the Civil Rights Act is the claim of the moment and not seating authority criteria per the state constitution, which is what POWELL seems to be applicable too. This make sense?

[swheats]

Thanks. Just seems like it's out of order, but stranger things have happened I'm sure. Especially if it has been proven voter fraud.

[angelsonmyside]

ping for more of the Memphis Mafia

[Postman]

"The Honorable Bernice Donald was nominated to the US District Court on December 7, 1995 by President William Clinton, confirmed by the United States Senate"

Looks like Ophelia Overcomes.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"I can see the Supreme Court becoming involved in matters concerning Federal representatives, but how in the hell does a Federal judge have the authority over a State legislative body with an issue concerning a Tennessee state representative?"

---

Not only does a federal judge not have jurisdiction here, a *state* judge wouldn't have jurisdiction either. The TN Senate is the sole judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its members, and if the Senate rules that Ophelia didn't win the election, then it can exclude her from the Senate. In fact, the Senate can rule that the Republican won the election and seat him, and there's nothing any court can do about it.

Powell v. McCormack was not a case about exclusion of a Representative because the House had ruled that he hadn't won, it was a case in which the House (unconstitutionally)tried to exclude a Representative because he had committed a crime. The Court (correctly) ruled that committing a crime does not mean that one does not meet the constitutional qualifications to be a Representative (i.e., 25 years old, 7 years a U.S. citizen, a resident of the state one represents), and neither Congress nor anyone els can add to the qualifications in the Constitution (this is also why the only way to impose term limits is through a constitutional amendment). While a House of Congress may *expel* (not exclude) a member for any or no reason (such House does not have to prove that such member committed a crime), a 2/3 vote is required to expel a member. In Adam Clayton Powell's case, the House leadership knew that it didn't have the 2/3 vote to expel Powell and thus tried to do an end run around the Constitution, only to be stopped by the Supreme Court.

I hope that activist judge gets impeached for violating his oath of office and exerting illegl jurisdiction in this case. She can't be so stupid as to believe that the judiciary can get involved in an election contest in a state senate; she's doing it knowing full well she is violating the law.

[billhilly]

In the case of Adam Clayton Powell there was never a question of whether he had been legitimately elected, because he was overwhelmingly elected each time he ran. another difference is, he was a federally elected official, and Ms ford is a state, and apparantly, unelected official.

[Luke Skyfreeper]

Isn't this a STATE Senate???

[scrabblehack]

Hmmm...it occurs to me that SCOTUS acted without cause.

In January of 1967, following allegations that Powell had misappropriated Committee funds for his personal use and other corruption allegations, the House Democratic Caucus stripped Powell of his committee chairmanship. The full House refused to seat him until completion of an investigation by the Judiciary Committee. In March the House voted 307 to 116 to exclude him. Powell won the special election in April to fill the vacancy caused by his exclusion, but did not take his seat.

In June of 1969 the Supreme Court ruled that the House had acted unconstitutionally when it excluded Powell, and he returned to the House, but without his seniority. Again his absenteeism was increasingly noted.

---

US Constitution,
I.5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

=====
Well, gee, 307 is well over 2/3. I don't see how it's relevant that the holder of the seat was black.

======
Article 2, Section 12 of the Tennessee State Constitution provides for expelling a member by a 2/3 vote (has Ophelia actually been seated yet?) although I see no provision for judging elections. Is it covered by statute? Slow connection...I'll have to look it up tomorrow.

[Kuksool]

Nice example of black robed tyranny. Looking at this case down the road, I doubt the Republican would be able to survive reelection. His victory is fluke. Ophelia Ford seems like a hysterical idiot. Having her blast her mouth on the General Assembly would embarrass the RATS and especially Harold Ford, Jr.

[VeniVidiVici]

Thanks for the explanation. I guess this cronyism at its best.

I'm sure this will be all over the MSM tomorrow and that the same will be asking Harold Ford Jr all about it.

[old republic]

I must point out that the decision in Powell v McCormack was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren one of the most liberal Justices in the Court's history. This Court was notorious for accepting cases that were political questions. One controversial example of such a step was the Baker v Carr decision. This decision made it so the Court could intervene in the drawing of Congressional districts which had been taboo before that case was decided.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I'll actually defend Baker v. Carr, because that decision had to do with the way Tennessee (Democrats, of course) had refused to redistrict its legislative seats, allowing a situation where rural districts with only a couple thousand people had the same representation as urban counties with hundreds of thousands. It was a grotesque inequity of staggering proportions, designed at the time to keep both Republicans and Blacks from fair representation.

[old republic]

I would presume that Tennesse has a right to judge the returns of its own elections which is what it seems they were doing in this case. The Federal Courts have no right to intervene in this though because the elections of state legislators is outside their jurisdiction.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[MissouriConservative]

bump for later reading

[Lancey Howard]

Surprise, surprise.

[GailA]

I heard she was filing as I was going out to dinner last night.

From my email this morning

link

There is much information on this site. Very interesting.

[GailA]

ALL the MSM love JUNIOR, they think he's a moderate, while we in TN know he's a LIBERAL who votes just 6 points to the right of teddy, pelosi and crew.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Any wonder why the judge decide that the "federal government" had jurisdiction over INTERNAL state matters.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Yes.