Constitutional Crisis: Refusal to Seat a US Senator

[Hunter]

One of my personal interests is national politics and I am sure each of you are aware of the recent appointment of Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's Senate Seat by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Sen. Harry Reid has come out and said that he and the rest of the Senate will refuse to seat any Blago appointment citing the Senate's constitutional authority to judge the qualifications of its members under the Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution. ""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.""

I was reading an article on Fox News today which brings up an interesting point: Can the Senate actually refuse to seat Burris?

Peter Johnson Jr., a FOX News legal analyst, said Wednesday the law favors Blagojevich and Burris.

"The Supreme Court has made it clear with regard to congressman ... The Constitution allows them to make a decision, but the decision is based on the parameters upon the constitution ... Are you the right age? Are you a citizen? That's it. It's not a discretionary thing, are you qualified? Do we like the guy that appointed you?" Johnson said.

"The Senate has the right to expel on a two-thirds vote. They don't have a discretionary right if he meets the constitutional requirements. This is a constitutional crisis," he said.

Fox News


My guess is that the US Senate will initially refuse to seat Burris however if the case is taken to the courts, the Senate will ultimately have to seat him if the Supreme Court rules the same way it did in the 1969 case when the House refused to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr.

Could we then see the shortest tenure of a US Senator where the Senate seats Burris and then immediately vote to expel him by a 2/3 vote?

 

[redneck]

About a hundred years ago there was a similar situation were the Senate refused to seat Utah congressmen Fred Smoot because he was a polygamist. The Supreme Court eventually ruled in favor of Smoot and he was seated. However, this case is differnt. Smoot was duely elected by the citizens of Utah. Burris was appointed by a corrupt governor who is charged with trying to sell the said seat.

My guess is that the Court will go with precedence and force the Senate to seat Burris, but I'd also expect the Senate to "punish" Burris. If he gets seated expect him not to get any respect and look for the Republicans to go after him and try to impeach him, and the Democrats may offer little resistance to that.

 

[MikeDC]

Actually that was Reed Smoot, co-author of the destructive Smoot-Hawley tariff. They should have kept his dumb ass out.

Fred Smoot, another DC resident, would be a much better and more entertaining senator.