I know…the House impeaches and the Senate convicts.
My question comes from a suggestion I saw elsewhere that a way for the senate to convict Trump and have republicans save face is for only 51 senators to show for the vote (the bare minimum needed for a quorum). It would require four republicans to show but I think there are four republicans to be found in the senate openly hostile to Trump to do it. They can vote against conviction too and the democrats would easily make up the 2/3 vote needed.
My question is would this work or does the constitution require all 100 senators to vote?
I believe the answer to your question is ‘yes’. The Constitution says:
On the practical side of things, I suspect a larger challenge than finding 4 anti-Trump Republican Senators to go along with the scheme would be to convince the other 49 Republican Senators that they should skip the vote. Most of them probably do not want to do this.
Republicans seem particularly good at taking marching orders and falling in line. If the leadership said this is how it is going down history suggests the rest would go along with it.
Also, while the math gets complex, you do not strictly need the 51 minimum for a quorum. If some diehard Trump supporters still wanted to show up they could without tipping the balance to acquit.
EDIT to add: Maybe not so complex. I think as long as there are 71 or fewer senators present and all dems vote to convict that would do it.
There are currently 45 Democratic senators plus two pretend independents. 47/71 = 0.66197… which is slightly less than two thirds, so that won’t do it. If 70 show up and 47 vote to convict, that gets you 0.67142… which works.
Sure. Have you seen any indications that the Republican leadership in the Senate is interested in telling Senators that they should not show up for the vote? I haven’t.
The president keeps thinking its best to ignore this ‘sham’ lest he give it any credibility - so he is not sending anyone to the Judiciary Committee hearings next week as a defense, etc -
The republicans can just follow suit with the (idiot) president and decide not to give this “sham” any credibility. Their silence can be the answer.
A reminder: This thread is in GQ, and is about what can, legally, be done. It is not about what should be done, or what is likely to be done, or about the reasons why it might or might not be done. Those are all questions for GD or Elections. Keep your responses factual.
Pressure from their owners will determine if and how GOP senators appear and vote. I assume very few, if any, GOPs will vote GUILTY. So what are their options?
GOP majority votes NOT GUILTY. It’s over.
GOP majority votes PRESENT. No removal.
GOP majority stays away. Maybe removal.
Moscow Mitch releases deadly fungus. Oy.
GOPs run away; Senate explodes & burns.
GOPS remain; Senate incinerates anyway.
Those last are Reichtag Fire type events that lead to state of emergency, martial law, rounding up dissidents, etc. Oh no, that can’t happen here!
@Chronos and @Colibri – Since HurricaneDitka and friedo were prompt to give probably the best, or maybe only knowable, factual answers, and all subsequent posts have just been kicking around ideas about it, perhaps this thread would best be moved to Elections now, instead of passing out mod notes and warnings?
The problem with a senator not showing up - or hiding in the washroom, or whatever - is that the result still reflects on them. If Senator A chose not to appear, and because he was not there the result is “impeached” due to a small quorum - then “I didn’t vote to impeach(remove)” won’t really be a defence in any primary or election, because their act of not attending permitted the result that happened. (I.e. in today’s reality, a Republican not attending is ceding the vote to the Democrats). Not only would a Republican senator be accused of helping to impeach anyway from their own party, they would also be subject to charges of cowardice from both sides during their next election. it’s lose-lose. It’s a decision that cannot be dodged. Voting “present” is no different than voting “no” since impeachment requires 2/3 of those present to vote “yes” (concurrence) to impeach (remove).
A quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn.
2. No Senator shall absent himself from the service of the Senate without leave.
If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be without debate.
Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall be in order.
So the question is can the Senate compel the attendance of absent members if there is a quorum? Surprisingly there seems to be few if any citations of how a process would occur. Could the presiding officer simply have the sergeant-at-arms arrest the absent Senator? Would it need a majority vote? Clearly there cannot be a rule without some method of enforcement.
But assuming the lack of any enforcement mechanism (under Ballin, it seem clear that the majority of a quorate Senate could enforce the rule but ignoring that for the moment) can it theoretically be done even if a quorum exists? Yes. A member suggests the lack of a quorum and the Senate would have a Quorum Call. If less than 51 Senators answer the Quorum Call (even if they are there) then there is a lack of a quorum and the absent Senators are sent for.
As for the authority to compel absent members to attend it is in the Constitution Article I, Section 5
So it sounds like whoever is present can choose to compel the attendance of those who are not present, whether those present constitute a quorum or not. But in a situation where it was being done as a political ruse, presumably those present would not choose to compel the attendance of those not present. And it looks like they have the authority to choose not to compel attendance.
That is an open question. Since the Presiding Officer is empowered to enforce the rules, I would argue that they could simply send the sergeant-at-arms to arrest the absent Senator. However if this is the case why would it need a majority of those present to order the arrest of absent Senators if there is no quorum? Also, what if a solo Senator raises a Point of Order that Senators are absent without leave? The Senate would be forced to do something.
I can think of one case where this would be used. Remember when the Pubs had pro-forma Senate sessions to prevent Obama from making recess appointments? If more Dems than Pubs showed up, they could have instituted a Quorum Call and had all of the Senators dragged into the chambers. If you are going to claim to be in session then you need to be in session.
Those pro-forma sessions were during times when most Senators were out of town, such as during Christmas and Thanksgiving. What happens if the S-at-A can’t find enough senators for a quorum within the DC area?
Presumably they send out the Sergeant at Arms to go round up the Senators and bring them back for the vote. In 1988 the Senate issued arrest warrants for 46 Republican senators who didn’t show up, causing a lack of a quorum, and they sent the Sergeant at Arms to go round them up.
No idea what would happen if they packed up and went to say… Montreal though, as they would have no jurisdiction there.
