Replies

The senate is the final judge as to who may be seated. If there are any irregularities they can refuse to seat.

The House of Representatives did this with an elected member back in the ‘70’s. They just voted not to seat him.

Harry Reid is checkmating Blago, not the other way round. As Majority Leader he’s telling Blago not to bother since the Federal Constitution trumps State Law in this area.

80 posted on 12/30/2008 12:56:28 PM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")

The senate is the final judge as to who may be seated. If there are any irregularities they can refuse to seat.

Nope ... read POWELL v. McCORMACK 395 U.S. 486 (1969). This has been adjudicated before, albeit for the House but they didn't have the specificity of Amendment 17 to go by either.

The House of Representatives did this with an elected member back in the ‘70’s. They just voted not to seat him.

And SCOTUS overruled - read the case, esp. Justice Douglas' opinion. Seat him they must and then expel.

84 posted on 12/30/2008 1:00:20 PM PST by NonValueAdded (once you get to really know people, there are always better reasons than [race] for despising them.)

and

Harry Reid is checkmating Blago, not the other way round. As Majority Leader he’s telling Blago not to bother since the Federal Constitution trumps State Law in this area.

Amendment 17 actually says State Law is the factor here:

Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

The Illinois Legislature did so.

86 posted on 12/30/2008 1:03:58 PM PST by NonValueAdded (once you get to really know people, there are always better reasons than [race] for despising them.)

In the 60’s, the Court ruled that Congress may only refuse to seat a member if he doesn't meet the constitutional requirements: that he was legally elected and that he was constitutionally qualified to hold the seat. The Court also asserted the jurisdiction to order Congress to seat a member if they improperly refused admission. Harry needs to hush.

“The senate is the final judge as to who may be seated. If there are any irregularities they can refuse to seat.

The House of Representatives did this with an elected member back in the ‘70’s. They just voted not to seat him.”

First sentence is wrong. And the second sentence is pointless, the rejected dude went to court and WON!!!

124 posted on 12/30/2008 4:52:53 PM PST by Sunnyflorida (Unless you are nice and thoughtful you will be ignored. Write in Thomas Sowell.)