Latest Poll
Loading ...
Jan
1
Constitutional Crisis?
January 1, 2009 at 9:15 PM | By Aaron T. Sterling
Recently, Peter Johnson, Jr., a Fox News Legal Analyst, made this statement:
“The Supreme Court has made it clear with regard to congressman…the Constitution allows them to make a decision, but the decision is based on the parameters upon the constitution…are you the right age? Are you a citizen? That’s it. It’s not a discretionary thing, are you qualified? Do we like the guy that appointed you?” Johnson said.
I disagree with his assessment on several levels. First of all, it is true that the Supreme Court “made it clear with regard to Congressmen”…over 30 years ago. Times change. Opinions change. And, more importantly, the Court changes.
Also, when the court made the ruling in question, no one had ever thought of a situation like we’re in today; where a Governor is accused of trying to offer up a U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder.
Secondly, I disagree with his assessment (and, therefore, the current Supreme Court holding) that the only things that the Senate can remove one of it’s own members for is things that are otherwise outlined in the Constitution. True, the Constitution outlines certain requirements for members of Congress.
However, if a seated Congressmen or Congresswoman is found to not qualify for their respective seat under the U.S. Constitution, then it would seem to me that there would be no need for the House or Senate to remove them: They would simply be ineligible to be members and their membership would, therefore, cease. The Constitution describes no prohibition against convicted felons being sitting Senators, yet the Senate Democrats weren’t the slightest bit ambiguous in their plans to remove Ted Stevens from his seat, should he have emerged victorious last November.
The point of this rant, I guess, is that I think this analyst is full of it. I think it’s hardly as “cut and dry” as he makes it out to be. Ultimately, it’ll be up to the Supreme Court, but there are obviously other situations (precedent aside) where Congress would disqualify one of it’s members for things that aren’t explicitly outlined in the Constitution.
There’s no way our Fore-Fathers could have thought of all the possible situations which would draw a Representatives or Senators’ ability to represent their constituency into question. That’s the exact reason the Constitution is purposefully ambiguous.
Burris Decision Could Lead to Unprecedented Use of Senate Power to Refuse Appointment (FoxNews.com)
Copyright 2008 © Political Capital
Related Articles: Roland Burris
“It is preposterous to suppose that the people of one generation can lay down the best and only rules of government for all who are to come after them, and under unforeseen contingencies.” - Ulysses S. Grant