Skip to main content

View Diary: MN-Sen Events v. 39.1, Desperate Norm Thread (190 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Incorrect (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sidnora

    They have to be certified. The senate can't even reject a senator whose been certified, they have to seat them and then expel them with a 2/3's vote. A scandal-plagued lawmaker in the late 60's/early 70's who won re-election twice while selling his votes on legislation resulted in a Supreme Court precedent on this after a crafty little plan that involved not seating him got sued into oblivion.

    The crux is that the qualifications for being elected a senator are in the constitution, the senate is required to follow those, and seat the person. Before they're seated, they aren't members yet, so the senate has no right to judge them for anything other then fulfilling the requirements. Once they're seated as members, then the more flexible rules come into play and the senate can expel them for just about anything, but it takes a 2/3's vote.

    •  Thanks. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AKMask

      Though there's nothing I could find in the Constitution regarding a requirement of certification, and Franken obviously meets all other qualifications.

      The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

      by sidnora on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 02:33:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sidnora

        Amendment XVII

        (Ratified April 8, 1913)

        The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

        When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

        This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

        The bolded part is the important one, although the second is what allows Blago to appoint in the other senate news of late. 'Elected by the people thereof' means a complete election, certified by the secretary of state for that state. Before this amendment was passed, senators were generally chosen by legislatures, not elections.

        •  I read that section closely (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          maryru, AKMask

          And spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out what "elected by the people thereof" meant. The Constitution, and even the Amendments are such models of elegant brevity that details (like certification) are not necessarily obvious to people like me, who are not constitutional scholars.

          Thanks again. Every day I learn something is a good day.

          The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

          by sidnora on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  'Elegant brevity'... I like that. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sidnora

            But it wasn't intentional, its because the federal government can't really tell states how to elect people. It doesn't even tell states how to elect presidents, for a long time legislatures gave out the electoral college votes as well.

            'Elected by the people thereof' means however a state wants to do the election, and as a de facto meaning, that means a certified election. Not because its explicit, but because that power is delegated to the states, and in either state constitutions or the laws of the state, they all require certification. All 50 of them.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site