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

To: Tallguy
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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]


To: NonValueAdded
"Seat him they must and then expel."

Imagine what happens if Burris then says "I ain't goin' no place---arrest me!" LOL!!

137 posted on 12/30/2008 7:49:31 PM PST by cookcounty ("A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built." ---Governor Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

To: NonValueAdded

The “Adam Clayton Powell” seating in the House of Reps was the one I was thinking of. I had forgotten that that was overturned in the USSC.

On reflection you wouldn’t necessarily want a majority of the House arbitrarily refusing to seat a duly elected individual who was otherwise constitutionally-qualified.


153 posted on 12/31/2008 6:39:26 AM PST by Tallguy ("The sh- t's chess, it ain't checkers!" -- Alonzo (Denzel Washington) in "Training Day")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | 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