As we know, the Senate could collectively decide not to seat Roy Moore, thus kicking him out of the Senate seat he was elected to (assuming he wins). I’m interested in hearing what folks think about that.
Me, I’m not at all OK with the idea, even though I loath the man. The guy gets elected with full knowledge of what he is and what he has done, so who are the rest of the Senators to overturn the will of the people of the state of Alabama? If we were talking about something he did after he was elected, then I can see where such an action could be justified.
For reference: Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that “Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”
The idea is that, sometimes, the yeoman voter elects someone who could have an adverse impact on the functioning of the national legislature. It makes sense - they wouldn’t be removing his senate seat and replacing him with his opponent; it would just be saying, send someone else.
I really can’t see them doing this. The last thing the Republicans want is to keep Roy Moore in the news every day going forward and have to dance around the issue.
And I agree, they shouldn’t expel him for something that was known by voters when they elected him.
I imagine there’s no appetite for another round of primaries and elections in Alabama as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Really? You think that is why we have that in the constitution? I doubt it, especially since the “yeomen” didn’t elect Senators when the constitution was written-- the state legislators did. And I don’t think such provisions should be used to overturn the will of the people. I think that is an abuse of what they are there for. I think they are there for ejecting Senators who, as Senators, have done things that justify expulsion.
Or maybe about whom something *becomes *known after seating, that is grossly beyond the pale, or that is upfront disqualifying from office (under 30 or not really a citizen or falsified the election certificate).
And in the case of Moore we already have precedent that the Alabama voters reelected him to an office from which he got kicked out for cause, only to have him kicked out again. So it is pretty clear his voters DO want this person speaking for them, whatever his personal malfunctions.
I do tend to agree that the resurgent theory of looking upon the legislative chamber’s being “judge of the qualifications of its members” and at the Electoral College as measures against* the people* (or in the past Senate, the state legislatures) making a mistake, is a reach.
But House members can expel members, too. You raise a valid point with regard to the earlier Senate classes, but I think that they wanted the national congress to have the power to rid itself of corrupt, disruptive individuals who don’t qualify as public servants. I think the Framers would very much agree with the idea of overruling the will of the people if they saw evidence that the people got it wrong at the ballot box. Whether that’s still operative today? That’s a matter of fair debate.
I think the last time they kicked a senator out was during the Civil War for supporting the Confederacy. They can use the same justification this time.
As awful as his predatorial behavior is, I think they’d be on solider footing kicking him out for his contempt of court, his willingness to flout the rule of law. It’s extremely unwise to put someone in your government who’s willing to upend the balance of power.
True, but three times in the last 35 years senators have resigned shortly before an expulsion vote they probably would have lost (Harrison Williams, Bob Packwood, and John Ensign).
I realize this is moot, but Moore denies the allegations. Suppose they were proved after the election. I certainly think kicking someone out for something discovered after the election would be fine. So it depends on what discovered means.
His past peccadillos as a judge aside, it could be argued that, had Moore won, the Alabama voters were saying “not a Democrat” as opposed to a positive affirmation of Moore. Giving Moore the boot on those grounds, with a tacit understanding that Alabama would probably send a proper Republican the second time around, might be defensible as far as the theory of democracy goes. It’s kind of like when John Ashcroft lost to a dead guy in Missouri. The people weren’t actually voting for a cadaver; they were voting against John Ashcroft (and had the understanding that Jean Carnahan would be appointed to the office).
Although it is moot, for which I am thankful, it’s surprising that Powell v. McCormack wasn’t invoked. Wouldn’t the same constitutional principles have applied?