But see Amendment XVII and Powell v. somebody. The gist is the Amendment is more specific and the court case says neither House can change the rules after the fact. Blago made the appointment and unless Harry can dust off a rule that allows him or a simple majority to say no, the must seat the guy and then expel him. They can’t make a new qualification and retroactively apply it. All this in the face of innocent until proven guilty. And the reality is that the Illinois Constitution gives the Supreme Court of Illinois the authority to temporarily pull Blago’s powers. They refused to do that so SCOTUS must take note that Illinois has refused to intervene. That’s a point Blago’s side will be sure to argue. This is a brilliant move by Blago - a wharf rat if I ever saw one! (IANL)
Good luck, Reid. I’ll just sit back and enjoy watching you destroy your so-called party.
“Article 1, Sections 9 and 10.”
Section 5 lets Congress sets the rule but the above citation prohibits a bill against an individual or ex post facto. SCOTUS would rule against the Congress.
Unless this appointment violates a standing law it would probably be argued that the resolution to bar him would be an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The Congress cannot make one off laws. If I was not feeling ill I would get you the case law.
Now if Congress had a rule on the books that said a governor with a standing but un-adjudicated criminal complaint cannot appoint a Senatorial replacement that is otherwise consistent with law then, maybe.