Politicspolitics

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 05:32 AM

Can Senate refuse to seat Moore OR kick him out after he's seated? One Const. expert says NO!

Judge Napolitano points out that the Const has ONLY 2 qualifications for the Senate, age and residency. Furthermore, NO ONE has ever been kicked out of the Senate for acts BEFORE he was elected. If he wins, SCOTUS could make the final decision. Just sayin.

12 replies, 155 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Dumper (Original post)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 06:26 AM

1. That's his opinion. Now, here's the rule.

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "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."

Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only fifteen of its entire membership. Of that number, fourteen were charged with support of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In several other cases, the Senate considered expulsion proceedings but either found the member not guilty or failed to act before the member left office. In those cases, corruption was the primary cause of complaint.

In the entire course of the Senate's history, only four members have been convicted of crimes. They were: Joseph R. Burton (1905), John Hipple Mitchell (1905), Truman H. Newberry (1920), and Harrison Williams (1981). Newberry's conviction was later overturned. Mitchell died. Burton, Newberry, and Williams resigned before the Senate could act on their expulsion.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Expulsion_Censure.htm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to News2Me (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 07:02 AM

2. You avoid the issue. "May punish its members for disorderly behavior..." I don't think SCOTUS has

ruled that included 'behavior' before the member was elected. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Reply #2)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 07:43 AM

3. I quoted the Senate rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to News2Me (Reply #3)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 07:58 AM

4. Which applies to members

As of right now, Moore is not a member, and if he is elected, why would the Senate kick him out? There is a Senator that is involved in a corruption trial right now, he still is a member, Kennedy killed a woman, he was a member.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cave Dweller (Reply #4)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 08:49 AM

6. I can't answer that one. You'll have to check with your Senator.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to News2Me (Reply #1)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 09:04 AM

8. I think I will take the opinion of a constitutional scholar over an Internet rando:

From today's Washington Post


Yes, the Senate can do that. But it's not easy, and it hasn't happened in a long time. Here's how it would work, as guided by Senate procedural experts Sarah Binder of the Brookings Institution and Josh Chafetz of Cornell Law.

Decide whether they can stop him from taking the seat: The Senate has constitutional power to decide whether to seat someone the voters elect, and that only requires a majority vote, Chafetz said. But the rules around this are pretty strict and probably don't follow this case: The Senate can only prevent someone from taking their seat if they either weren't duly elected or don't have the constitutional qualifications to be a senator (like being under the age of 30 or not a U.S. citizen). "They can’t just exclude someone because they don’t like him or even because he has committed a crime; it has to be because he’s not actually entitled to a seat," Chafetz said

To repeat the imminent Cornell prof: They can’t just exclude someone because they don’t like him or even because he has committed a crime; it has to be because he’s not actually entitled to a seat,"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/11/13/how-senate-republicans-could-kick-roy-moore-out-of-the-senate/?utm_term=.98e804cc681d

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rh24 (Reply #8)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 09:15 AM

9. Please note that my "Internet rando:" is the actual Senate.gov website.

You can accept any opinion that you prefer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Original post)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 08:17 AM

5. Napolitano is not an expert

He's been wrong on everything that makes the news.

He just says whatever you want to hear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metroins (Reply #5)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 08:56 AM

7. Where is LMPV when you need him

What ever he says would be the exact opposite of what is legally correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dumper (Original post)

Tue Nov 14, 2017, 10:16 AM

10. This appears pretty cut and dried

In Powell Vs McCormack the court ruled 8-0 that the qualification for a rep are in the Constitution. And since Powell met those qualification he had to be seated.

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486 (1969), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Qualifications of Members Clause of Article One of the United States Constitution is an exclusive list of qualifications of members of the House of Representatives; the House may exclude a duly elected member for only those reasons enumerated in the clause.

Please see for more detail:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to def_con5 (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 17, 2017, 08:50 AM

11. Seating and expulsion have different requirements

Seating and expelling are entirely different things. There are limitations on not seating. It is done by a majority vote but it must be because of a constitutional qualification. The only thing necessary for expulsion is two-thirds vote of the members. So a convicted murderer would have to be seated but two-thirds vote of the membership can expel him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to esquirexii (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 17, 2017, 11:02 AM

12. So there are NO constraints/requirements for expulsion? Just a vote. No due process? It could be

because he was, say, a Muslim?

And after there is an expulsion, can the Gov appoint a temp successor?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspolitics