Skip to main content

View Diary: More opinions on blocking Burris (315 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There is NO evidence at all relating to Burris's (3+ / 0-)

    appointment; you should not even be insinuating that there is.  For goodness sakes the US attorney hasn't even been able to get an indictment of Blago on the other charges.  

    •  That doesn't answer my question. (0+ / 0-)

      If there is evidence of a bribe, does the Constitution allow the Senate to bar his swearing in?

      •  I still say the would have to seat him. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        justmy2, angry liberaltarian

        Right after they finish that the  could expel him

        •  well, then ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... what does the word "judge" mean in Art I sec 5?

          •  It could mean anything it could mean nothing. (0+ / 0-)

            That is the beauty of the constitution. They didn't really  spend time writing the definitions section. For anyone to suggest they know what that means is ridiculous. That is why you have to look at the precedence set by the Powell decision.

            In powell the court said that the way that it is to be done is covered in the following paragraph expulsion. While the Powell decision was about Judging  Qualifications and some argue that this would be about judging returns. To suggest that the analysis would be some how different in a return vrs Qualification seem silly; given that both nouns are in the same sentence.

            The central point of Powell is that you need a 2/3 vote of the Senate or House  to separate a duly selected Senator or Congress Member from their seat.

          •  By analogy from the qualifications provision (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alec82

            as interpreted by McCormack, the Senate would be the judge of whether in fact the Senator was validly elected or appointed.

            Thus, if a potential Senator said he was appointed and the relevant appointing authority said otherwise the Senate would be the judge of what actually happened.

            That might well extend to the allegation that the Senate appointment was bribed, but here we get into somewhat murky territory.  

            In this case however, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of bribery. Thus proponents of the exclusion have to reach for the idea that the fact that other candidates may have been excluded because they wouldn't offer bribes taints the evidence.

            This begins to get pretty far out and reach the point where we are beginning to say that a majority of the Senate can refuse to seat a Senator because a majority doesn't want to.

            I'm pretty sure we don't want to go there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (147)
  • Community (57)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (37)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (29)
  • Elections (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (25)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Education (18)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Racism (17)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Politics (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site