I’m afraid I wouldn’t know. I’m registered Independent, so I do not get directives from either party.
Isn’t this General Questions? Take it to Great Debates or at least pose your question in a less inflamatory manner.
And while we’re at it, let’s knock off the junior modding.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
It’s possible to make him irrelevant, at least. A solid majority by one party would keep them from having to cater to independents.
There are no irrelevant Senators. There’s only 100 of them, majorities are nearly always slim, and party discipline is weak to non-existent.
Party discipline is weak? Since when? On every important and on every political matter the Republicans and Democrats have been voting in almost inviolable blocs for years. Exceptions are allowed only when it won’t affect the desired results of the vote.
Or an elephant that thinks it’s a donkey.
Cite? I venture that well less than 50% of Senate votes are strictly on party lines.
In fact this site shows that in only two of the last 20 votes in the Senate did senators in the same party all vote the same way, and those were in cases where the vote was unanimous.
It’s crucial every two years, when the committee chairmanships are assigned. Although votes are usually not strictly along party lines, the chairmen decide *what * is voted upon. That would seem to be far more important.
Lieberman is relevant at the moment because his choice of which party to caucus with has decided the chairmanships.
The factual portion of this OP appears to have concluded. Moved from General Questions to Great Debates.
Gfactor
General Questions Moderator
Just to be pedantic, when the Senate acquits based on “lack of jurisdiction”, it is a nice way to say, “since you quit, we won’t remove you from office.” and can apply for the impeachment of any officer - not just a Senator.
On January 11, 1799 the Senate dismissed the case against Senator Blount since he had been expelled from the Senate on July 8, 1797, the day after he found out he was going to be impeached. He refused to attend the trial. After repeated refusals by Blount, the Senate changed the position of doorkeeper into Sergeant-of-Arms on February 5, 1798 and ordered him to arrest Blount. Blount refused to be arrested and stayed in Tennessee, but he did send lawyers to defend himself. The Senate could not decide whether or not they could try an ex-Senator and so eventually they dismissed the charges for lack of jurisdiction. However, it was during the trial for Secretary Belknap that the Senate changed its rules and decided that it could try officials for crimes committed during their period of office (cf. the Blount case). This was because in addition to removal from office (moot in this case), the Senate could disqualify the person from ever holding another office again. Belknap was acquitted of all charges, not because he was innocent but because many Senators were reluctant to convict a (now) private citizen. This led the Senate to return to tradition and dismiss charges if the person accused resigned.
The precident for not impeaching legislative officers comes from Belknap’s defense. Part of Blount’s defense presented by Jared Ingersoll and A. J. Dallas was that legislators were not civil officers as defined by the Constitution. Article I Section 6 seems to imply that there is a division between legislators and officers of the United States. This seems to also be indicated by Article II Section 4 which applies impeachment to the executive branch. But what about the judicial branch? This one is trickier. Judges are appointed for life contingent on “good behavior”. However, there is no mechanism for removing a judge for bad behavior whereas there is a mechanism for expelling a member of the legislature (Article I Section 5 Clause 2). In addition, Article VI Clause 3 seems to separate the federal government into two groups: legislators and officers (both executive and judicial). This means that members of the executive branch and judges can be impeached, but a member of Congress is immune from impeachment.