PDA

View Full Version : Can the Senate refuse to seat Burris?




Thrashertm
01-04-2009, 06:02 PM
I have been hearing lots of vapid meaningless punditry on TV about this fiasco, but I wonder what the legal justification is alluded to in this article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090104/pl_nm/us_blagojevich_senate

It would seem to me that it's the state of IL's business to determine who it wants to represent it in the Senate, and the other Senators are obligated to just live with it.

demolama
01-04-2009, 06:35 PM
If my memory serves me correctly the first time Congress ever denied seating any elected/selected members was when they refused to seat the southern states after the civil war. In fact that should be the only time.

The only requirements that disqualifies a representative from a state is if they do not meet the requirements under article 1 section 3.

To say so-and-so is unqualified because we don't like who the selection for their representative is is in no way constitutional.

Standing Like A Rock
01-04-2009, 06:54 PM
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Sunday that "legal authority" exists under the Constitution to bar embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, but added there is also room to negotiate.

Under the Constitution, Reid said, "We determine who sits in the Senate. And the House (of Representatives) determines who sits in the House. So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do. This goes back for generations."

so exactly where does it say any of that in the constitution????????

Thrashertm
01-04-2009, 07:01 PM
so exactly where does it say any of that in the constitution????????

exactly.

demolama
01-04-2009, 07:05 PM
He'll use this clause

article 1 section 5

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 it was established that the only qualifications are

article 1 section 3

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

Sandra
01-04-2009, 08:52 PM
If they do, it will set precedent for not seating anyone, even in an election.

sevin
01-04-2009, 09:39 PM
If they do, it will set precedent for not seating anyone, even in an election.

That would be a pretty dangerous precedent, actually.

Mesogen
01-04-2009, 10:41 PM
2/3 of the Senate can vote to expel Burris (or any member)

But they can't, without a vote, just block his entrance.

The Dem leaders in this case are out of their minds.

angelatc
01-04-2009, 10:49 PM
Giving the Senate this power is a very dangerous precedent. Naturally, the neocons are all for it.

Lawyers Blogging:

http://volokh.com/posts/1230836855.shtml - Argument about why The Senate can refuse to seat him. Best comment:
Once again, Constitutional scholars try, through analogy, to pretend the Constitution says something it doesn't. The Constitution does say the Senate is "the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own members." Because a fraudulent election could be reviewed and acted by the Senate under this provision, it is argued, then it follows by analogy that we can use this same provision to allow the Senate to review appointed senators.

Unfortunately, when this provision was written, there were no circumstances where governors would appoint senators, so the term "Appointments" was not added to the list of "Elections, Returns, and Qualifications." Nor, when the Constitution was amended to allow both the popular election of senators and the right of states to enact laws that permit governors to make such appointments, did anyone also amend the Constitution to allow the Senate to review "appointments."

So, if you actually want to use the words of the Constitution (hah), I think all the Senate can look at is the qualifications of Burris (no real question there) or the "return," which is just the validity of the document showing the governor's pick. There will be no question over the validity of that document either.

But we cannot reason from the fact (if it is one) that the Senate can look into whether an election of a senator is "tainted" that ipso facto it can look into whether an appointment was. It might be a good idea to amend the Constitution to provide for it, but it's not there now.
1.1.2009 5:26pm
(link)
J. Aldridge:


Why they can't refuse: http://volokh.com/posts/1230669634.shtml

Primbs
01-05-2009, 10:06 AM
The Senate may try to use the sergeant at arms to physically block the entrance to the Senate floor.

The Democrats have arrested a senator before and dragged him onto the senate floor, so anything can happen.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE6DF1239F936A15751C0A96E9482 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all