Impeachment in the senate: Would a bare minimum for a quorum suffice?

[bump]

Interesting article about Senators being compelled to show up for a quorum…

Why Senators Can Be Arrested for Not Going to Work

[commasense]

@commasense

Over in this thread, I asked the same question, and Saint Cad said this:

However, he gives no cite.

@Saint_Cad

Rule VI

1. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

BTW, I hope Saint Cad and everyone else here understands that I didn’t mean to imply that Saint Cad didn’t have a source for the statement I quoted, only that I didn’t know what it was. Thanks for providing it in your subsequent post, SC. (Although you didn’t actually include a link to the rules.:D)

[dtilque]

@bump

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.

You didn’t quite answer what I asked. What happens if they need a quorum today and the bulk of the Senators are more than a day’s travel away, scattered all over the country? They send the S@A out but he and his team can’t corral enough of them until the third day. What do they do then?

[Saint_Cad]

@dtilque

You didn’t quite answer what I asked. What happens if they need a quorum today and the bulk of the Senators are more than a day’s travel away, scattered all over the country? They send the S@A out but he and his team can’t corral enough of them until the third day. What do they do then?

They conduct no business until a quorum is reached. I would have been used to inconvenience the Pubs who were claiming the Senate was in session while not attending as they are legally required to do.