A recent diary has re-ignited that debate as to whether Joe Lieberman (or anyone else for that matter) can flip control of the senate to the GOP. This diary basically made the point that we should be willing to take the short term risk of this happening for the greater good of the party. This in turn rekindled the debate as to whether the Senate's organizational rules passed earlier this year rendered Lieberman powerless to do this by switching parties. I have to disagree with those who hold this view.
Much is made of the rule listing the committee make-ups for the 110th congress. Some opine that it basically sets in stone the committee make ups for this congress until its end. A plain reading of this very simple resolution shows it does no such thing:
To constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for
the One Hundred Tenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen.
Resolved, That the following shall constitute the majority party's
membership on the following committees for the One Hundred Tenth
Congress, or until their successors are chosen:
http://To%20constitute%20the%20major...
All it says is that these people, Democrats, will serve on these committees as the majority UNTIL THEIR SUCCESSORS are chosen. That's the money phrase. This resolution specifically leaves upon the possibility that the committee chairs can be replaced. To me, the current resolution explicitly authorizes anyone to be named a replacement of a current committee chair. They just have to be in the majority. Furthermore, there is no limiting language here. In general, we interpreting a legislative act, one is supposed to assume that the body knew what it was doing when it adopted the language. They knew well from recent precedent the committee chairs and the entire senate balance of power can be upset by one member switching parties. That they did not add language to specfically ban this from happening again strongly suggests that this rule is not intended to lock in the current committee chairs. Note that the resolution doesn't even refer to the Democrats as being in control. It says the majority party. If Lieberman were to caucus with them, with Cheney's tie breaking vote the GOP is then the majority party and is empowered to name successor committee chairs.
Too much is made of Senate precedent as well. There was a time when the Dems maintained control even though they lost the numerical majority. While precedent is useful, its not binding the way a US Supreme court decision can be (and even those can be overturned). Senate precedent doesn't have the stare decisis effect of a court decision. More important is the US Constitution, which specifically grants each house the power to makes its own rules to govern its proceedings. See U.S. Const. Art. I. Sec. 5.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior
A new GOP majority could then make its own rules. Maybe the Dems could filibuster this. Maybe they coudnd't. Maybe the GOP would invoke the Nuclear Option. I don't want to take that chance.
And anyone hoping for relief from the courts can forget it. Taking this to court would be a non-starter, since this would assuredly be held to be a political question, thus outside the jurisdiction of the court. See Coleman v. Miller,. And if by some miracle a court did agree to hear a case challenging a switch in senate control, do any of you have any confidence in our courts on these matters after the 2000 Election? Face it, with Lieberman we control the senate. Without him, control could very well flip to the GOP. Unfortunately, that's the way it will have to be until the next elections.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...