Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

unblock

(56,271 posts)

1. that's flat out incorrect and ignorant of factual history.

Reply to applegrove (Original post)

Thu Nov 30, 2017, 06:46 PM

Nov 2017

article i, section 5: "Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide."

either house can kick out or refuse to seat any member for any reason.

the senate initially refused to seat burris (d-il), who was appointed by blagojevich.
more infamously, the senate took four years to seat smoot (r-ut) because he was a mormon.

the senate absolutely can refuse to seat moore if it chooses to do so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unseated_members_of_the_United_States_Congress

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

2 replies