Conservative hero Roy Moore diddles 14 year old girls

UsualName said:
There is not much guidance given for expulsion except two-thirds vote is needed. As I have looked into this, the question of who knew what, when doesn’t seem to come into play constitutionally. The two thirds standard sets the bar and inherently the house seeking expulsion has the power of what warrants expulsion by meeting the vote standard.

This is not to say the courts may want to weigh in and muddy the waters. We all know they have a way of doing that.
More...


Don't be so hasty about what it says about expulsion. That is only part of the equation. The whole purpose and language of the constitution originally was to make sure that the feds/national government did not encroach on the peoples and the state's right to decide who they will be governed by - not to easily be set aside by a senate club that decides who is good enough and not good enough to be one of them.

Again, Franken's situation is different. He allegedly misbehaved while a senator so I think it is fairly clear that they could bounce him if they wanted. Right now, I don't think they want to. Just refer him to the Ethics Committee for a reprimand. But by this time next week the dems will realize that if they bounce him they can put Keith Ellison in to replace him and give him a head start for the 2020 election.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
Don't be so hasty about what it says about expulsion. That is only part of the equation. The whole purpose and language of the constitution originally was to make sure that the feds/national government did not encroach on the peoples and the state's right to decide who they will be governed by - not to easily be set aside by a senate club that decides who is good enough and not good enough to be one of them.
More...

Sure, if it were a simple majority vote I could understand the argument of not encroaching on the right to representation but the standard is high, same as a veto override, and should act as a sufficient enough safeguard to protect states and voters from unwarranted expulsions. Self preservation, etc.

Theoretically there is jurisdiction in DC and Alabama so most likely we would see a full throated argument that may reach the Supreme Court if he does get through and then faces expulsion. That would be a lively one.
 
UsualName said:
Sure, if it were a simple majority vote I could understand the argument of not encroaching on the right to representation but the standard is high, same as a veto override, and should act as a sufficient enough safeguard to protect states and voters from unwarranted expulsions. Self preservation, etc.

.
More...

The fact that you are okay with it and it seems reasonable to you does not establish a constitutional power/right for the senate to do it in the case of a senator whose alleged offense occurred before he/she was elected and whose offense was known to the voters.
The 10th amendment gives states electoral powers that cannot be abridged. Lots of senators are on the wrong side of three quarters of the senate and the Framers fully envisioned and wanted to protect the senator that the state wanted- not the other senators. If, for example, 40 years ago some guy such as Bernie ran as a communist in Vermont and was elected, there might easily be three quarters of the senators who did not think it was right to have an avowed commie as senator. As long as he behaves himself while in office it is none of their business.

It is true, that historically, some senators were bounced for being confederate and being loyal to the cause to secede. But those issues rose to the level of treason, non-allegiance to the country, and so on. Not quite the same.

The other day I gave the example of Anthony the Weiner. I contend that they had the power to bounce him in a new York second if he did not resign because he was misbehaving in office. On the other hand if he comes out of prison and wants to run and can get elected. That's up to him and a matter for the voters to decide. No way should the house have the power to not seat him or to immediately expel him.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
The fact that you are okay with it and it seems reasonable to you does not establish a constitutional power/right for the senate to do it in the case of a senator whose alleged offense occurred before he/she was elected and whose offense was known to the voters.
The 10th amendment gives states electoral powers that cannot be abridged. Lots of senators are on the wrong side of three quarters of the senate and the Framers fully envisioned and wanted to protect the senator that the state wanted- not the other senators. If, for example, 40 years ago some guy such as Bernie ran as a communist in Vermont and was elected, there might easily be three quarters of the senators who did not think it was right to have an avowed commie as senator. As long as he behaves himself while in office it is none of their business.

It is true, that historically, some senators were bounced for being confederate and being loyal to the cause to secede. But those issues rose to the level of treason, non-allegiance to the country, and so on. Not quite the same.

The other day I gave the example of Anthony the Weiner. I contend that they had the power to bounce him in a new York second if he did not resign because he was misbehaving in office. On the other hand if he comes out of prison and wants to run and can get elected. That's up to him and a matter for the voters to decide. No way should the house have the power to not seat him or to immediately expel him.
More...

To be fair, you have fair points but I don’t see the parameters the court could impose on the senate, outside what is standard in say impeachment (maybe). There a behavior incompatible with office huidance there. Not to mention when Moore was chasing teenagers he was a assistant district attorney, that is a public official.

Even if they expel, he can certainly come back. That has happened with some senator that bopped another senator with their cane.

So I agree with you it’s not cut and dry but there is a route and I believe they should move to expel if he is the senator.

As I was closing I also realized, they could just put him under oath and get him for lying to Congress, if he lies.
 
UsualName said:
So I agree with you it’s not cut and dry but there is a route and I believe they should move to expel if he is the senator.

.
More...

You seem to keep using moore for your examples. Franken is the one who misbehaved while in office. Are you saying they should move to expel him too or is this a "we will keep moore from being seated and expel him if he is but we will just send Al over to the Ethics Committee "because he is already one of us and just screwed up a little."
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
You seem to keep using moore for your examples. Franken is the one who misbehaved while in office. Are you saying they should move to expel him too or is this a "we will keep moore from being seated and expel him if he is but we will just send Al over to the Ethics Committee "because he is already one of us and just screwed up a little."
More...

I have commented on Franken in the Franken thread. Conflating the two doesn’t help.
 
UsualName said:
I have commented on Franken in the Franken thread. Conflating the two doesn’t help.
More...

Alright I guess- or not.

The most recent thread on franken since he was exposed is the "Al Franken Turn in the Barrel" thread. I don't see a single post from you there but maybe things are set up in some way so that I can see your posts in this thread but not another.

Whatever.
 
get
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
Alright I guess- or not.

The most recent thread on franken since he was exposed is the "Al Franken Turn in the Barrel" thread. I don't see a single post from you there but maybe things are set up in some way so that I can see your posts in this thread but not another.

Whatever.
More...

Well there’s the other one too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top