- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,257
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I have seen a few threads where people have referred to this clause in the Constitution:
Based on that clause, they are making claims that, if Franken is denied the Senate seat because some rejected absentee ballots were not counted, then the Senate has the right to declare this election null and void. Then the Senate seat would be vacant until a new election is held.
I have also seen this argument on a few Liberal blogs that my wife (a Democrat, bless her heart:mrgreen
Here is why this will not work:
In 1969, the House attempted to not seat Adam Clayton Powell, using this same argument. At the time, Powell was in the middle of several scandals. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled according to another case, known as Baker v. Carr, that, according to the Constitution, this clause meant that House and Senate were limited to judgment of a candidate's qualifications, as set forth in the Constitution itself - Namely meeting age, residence, and other qualifications which are expressly stated in the Constitution. Elections and returns are judged the same way - according to what is expressly stated in the Constitution on such matters.
In regard to Franken/Coleman, was the election and the returns from that election according to Federal law as set forth in the Constitution? That is the only question that matters. The House and Senate, according to Supreme Court rulings, can only rule on "qualifications" as defined in the Constitution.
To the Democrats - Your last hope of getting Franken seated is:
1) The State of Minnesota ruling that improperly rejected absentee ballots count.
AND
2) Franken then beating Coleman as a result of that State ruling.
If Franken loses this challenge at the state level, then there is only one other option. The Senate DOES have the power to expel a Senator with a 2/3 vote, but since there are still 41 Republicans in the Senate, not including Coleman himself, this option is not going to happen.
If the State of Minnesota rules against you, you may think it sucks all you want, but you will still have Coleman as your Senator for the next 6 years, and Coleman's seating will have been based on settled law.
Powell v. McCormack ruling is here.
Baker v. Carr ruling is here.
Article I, Sec. 5
Based on that clause, they are making claims that, if Franken is denied the Senate seat because some rejected absentee ballots were not counted, then the Senate has the right to declare this election null and void. Then the Senate seat would be vacant until a new election is held.
I have also seen this argument on a few Liberal blogs that my wife (a Democrat, bless her heart:mrgreen
Here is why this will not work:
In 1969, the House attempted to not seat Adam Clayton Powell, using this same argument. At the time, Powell was in the middle of several scandals. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled according to another case, known as Baker v. Carr, that, according to the Constitution, this clause meant that House and Senate were limited to judgment of a candidate's qualifications, as set forth in the Constitution itself - Namely meeting age, residence, and other qualifications which are expressly stated in the Constitution. Elections and returns are judged the same way - according to what is expressly stated in the Constitution on such matters.
In regard to Franken/Coleman, was the election and the returns from that election according to Federal law as set forth in the Constitution? That is the only question that matters. The House and Senate, according to Supreme Court rulings, can only rule on "qualifications" as defined in the Constitution.
To the Democrats - Your last hope of getting Franken seated is:
1) The State of Minnesota ruling that improperly rejected absentee ballots count.
AND
2) Franken then beating Coleman as a result of that State ruling.
If Franken loses this challenge at the state level, then there is only one other option. The Senate DOES have the power to expel a Senator with a 2/3 vote, but since there are still 41 Republicans in the Senate, not including Coleman himself, this option is not going to happen.
If the State of Minnesota rules against you, you may think it sucks all you want, but you will still have Coleman as your Senator for the next 6 years, and Coleman's seating will have been based on settled law.
Powell v. McCormack ruling is here.
Baker v. Carr ruling is here.
Last edited: