I’m also uncertain that the US Attorney General could cavalierly move the trial for murder, clearly a state matter, into federal court. That would challenge certain state rights.
Is there even a federal stature against murder? If not then how could the AG take over the matter?
Of course it is illegal. Just like any other coup, the illegality will be masked by BS.
Murdering other branches of government is not constitutional, period.
Do you have a cite. The constitution says a majority of members, but it isn’t clear if that means a majority of actual seated members or the majority of the number of people that would be in each chamber if each state had a full delegation.
Also, my understanding is that they only need a quorum if someone in the chamber asks for a quorum call. Presumably our hypothetical one-man legislative chambers wouldn’t ask for such a call.
This was the first page I found.
IOW, this hasn’t been debatable since day one of the U.S.
It’s the opposite.
Exactly. Unless there is a quorum call, it’s assumed that a quorum is present.
Isn’t that the same thing as what I said? A quorum is assumed unless a member asks for a quorum call. Presumably our one-man senate isn’t going to ask for such a call, so quorum will be assumed and votes can proceed as usual.
Since Really Not All That Bright and I both thought you meant the exact opposite, your post wasn’t as clear as you thought.
I understood what he meant. I thought you had misread your own citation.
I see what you’re saying. Because of the two questions Simplicio asked, I thought that he was questioning the *fact *of what the number of a quorum is.
I think the question of whether a single person would satisfy the entirety of the standing rules of the House and Senate is still open, though. For example, how could anything be seconded?
Presumably the first order of business would be changing the standing rules. Or we could just modify the OP’s scenario so that a dozen or so loyal congresspeople get to live, instead of one per house.
My recollection of the Adam Clayton Powell case is that the Court has ruled that Congress’ power to determine the qualifications of a duly elected or appointed putative member extends only to whether that member meets the qualifications set forth in the Constitution (age and so forth). Congress does not have the legal authority to refuse to seat a member on other grounds.
Congress can vote to expel a member, but the newly-seated members would be permitted to participate in that vote.
Members get to vote on their own expulsions?
(never mind)
I think the real problem is that you’re trying for a legal coup d’etat. That trick never works, not even if you get a larger hat.
For the benefit of anyone reading this thread from a black helicopter, let the record show that I am not personally attempting any sort of coup d’etat, legal or otherwise.
You have to choose the senator carefully - make sure he’s not from a state that has a recall mechanism, unless the plan includes declaring such mechanisms in violation of federal law.
I don’t think you can recall any federal legislators.
I think this is one case where the spirit of the law should be followed, rather than the letter.
The Constitution requires each house to “assemble” and “meet”, but one person can neither assemble nor meet. I think if you kill all the senators but one then you no longer have a senate as envisaged by the Constitution.
And, overlooking that point, in so far as the standing orders of either house would need to be amended to enable the house to function with just one member, this itself would have to be done in accordance with standing orders. Thus, before killing all but one of the senators, the plotters would have to persuade the Senate to amend standing orders so that business could be done if the Senate had only one member.
You stipulate as part of the question that the people writing laws and the person interpreting laws are under the presidents control. Which makes the entire issue of ‘is this legal’ rather silly. Of course it’s legal, as part of your hypothetical you stipulated that the President can write whatever law he wants and can have any existing law interpreted however he wants.
Now, if the question is “Is it legal under current rules” the answer is obviously no. As already mentioned, states would nail the President for murder. I’m quite sure a creative state AG could find a way.
Also note, the hypothetical does not allow him to change the Constitution. So, assuming the President felt bound by the Constitution, the absolute max he has in office is 8 years even if all other methods of removal failed. There’s no way to change limit unless 3/4 the states went along with repealing the 22nd Amendment.