Powell v. McCormack as it relates to Blago

[Clio the Leo]

Thought my fellow-super geeky legal heads might like to read the 1969 decision by the Supreme Court stating that Congress CANNOT unseat .. or refuse to seat ... someone simply because they deem them to be unworthy of the office. They are limited to only doing so if the appointee does not meet the qualifications set forth by the Constitution ..... age .... citizenship, etc.

In short...

"Constitutional scholars of two centuries have reaffirmed the principle that congressional power to "judge" the qualifications of its members is limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. 1 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 462 (5th ed. 1891); C. Warren, The Making of the Constitution 420-426 (1928). See also remarks by Emmanuel Celler, Chairman of the House Select Committee which inquired into the qualifications of Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., and which recommended seating him:

"The Constitution lays down three qualifications for one to enter Congress - age, inhabitancy, citizenship. Mr. Powell satisfies all three. The House cannot add to these qualifications." 113 Cong. Rec. 4998."

Enjoy!

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=395&invol=486

[GarbagemanLB]

1. They can kick him out after he is accepted, though.

[Clio the Leo]

2. And he could be ostracized in a manner to make his seat worthless. NT

[AZ Criminal JD]

5. No they can't

Read the decision and also Thornton v. U.S. Term Limits which reaffirmed Powell.

[BzaDem]

6. They can expel any senator for any reason (with a 2/3 vote).

[AZ Criminal JD]

7. The Supreme Court said they can't

Powell v. McCormack (1967). You may think the Senate will defy the Supreme Court but they won't.

[slick8790]

8. No, the supreme court said in "Powell" they can't EXCLUDE someone.

Powell was a case based on a simple majority vote resolution to deny Powell his seat before he had been seated. It answered the question of whether either house could draw arbitrary qualifications beyond the constitutional ones, and said they cannot. They specifically make a distinction in their decision in part IV between exclusion and expulsion. Powell was an exclusion case. The senate could still seat burris, and promptly expel him after.

[Ilsa]

3. And let's remind the Senate GOP of this since they say they will deny Franken his seat. nt

[Venceremos]

4. There's a significant difference between that case

and the Blagojevich appointment. The petitioner in Powell v. McCormack was "duly elected" by the voters of his district. And if you check out Footnote 14, the court drew a distinction between duly elected and appointed. And in the case they referenced in Footnote 14 (ALEJANDRINO v. QUEZON) the Court declined to address the key Blago question - if the Senate has the right to expel an appointed Senator.