What does this have to do with whether he should be expelled?

I think is was likely just inferred by Alaskans who probably had no actual idea how a replacement would be handled.

Also, "He may be a calcified, corrupt, narcissistic example of much of what is wrong with politics, but he's OUR calcified, corrupt, narcissistic example of much of what is wrong with politics."

Were it not for his effect on the rest of America also as a senator, I'd be tempted to just let them keep him.

One of those facts that they knew was that he would be expelled if they elected them.

When I was in India this summer, there was a no confidence vote put forth against the prime minister and they let some parliament members leave prison for the day to vote since it was such a big deal...if India can do it, why cant we?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0723/p25s10-wosc.html

I have no idea. You would almost certainly take the over tho. I'd almost certainly take the under on yours.

I wouldn't but I understand your POV.

depends on the state

I'm a felon, and I could've voted had there been a single candidate worth receiving my vote.

So are they calling it the Stevens Effect yet?

Only this answer (if it is true) has any validity. The rest are nonsense. Senate expulsions should occur only when it is obvious that his constituents would have voted him out or if he has broken a rule.

If? I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Stevens getting charged with 7 felonies for not reporting gifts from campaign contributors and people with federal contracts/seeking federal contracts like oil companies probably violated a Senate rule or two. By my count, he violated Standing Rules 34, 35, and 37, at least.

I think it's clear the people of Alaska want a special election, which is how they replace Senators now.

I should have said a rule that automatically expels him. Which I assume is not the case here or he wouldn't be allowed to run.

I do agree that the presumption that Alaskans who voted for him were expecting a Republican replacement, messes up my argument. But what if they weren't?

winna

He's a sitting senator. I'm pretty sure if he was a year into a term he'd be expelled without worrying about his constituents.

There's really no such a thing as a rule that "automatically" expels you, though, nor any kind of conditional about running or not based on violation of the rules. The determinition as to whether or not a rule violation is "expulsion worthy" rests in the hands of the Senate itself. Article I, section 5 of the U.S. Constitution provides that each chamber of Congress “shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members” and can “punish its members for disorderly behavior", and that punishment can include expulsion:

http://www.senate.gov/reference/refe...ulsion_vrd.htm

Now, you can say your argument here is that the Senate shouldn't go ahead and exercise their right to expel a fellow member, but you also noted that violating a Senate rule would be legitimate grounds for expelling a Senator. If you're in agreement that Stevens violated a rule (in fact numerous ones) and that the rule violating constitutes a just cause for expulsion, then I think it's fair to conclude expelling Stevens is justifiable. Your distinction about rule violations that "automatically expels him" and would automatically "prevent him from running" is a Constitutional standard that doesn't exist.

I completely understand the position that Senators should never be expelled out of deference to the will of the Senator's constituents (I don't agree with it, mind you), but where you lose the "why should be be expelled" argument, imo, is the "if he violates a rule (then it's justifiable)" conditional, especially when couched as "if he violates a rule that automatically expels him", since that's an impossible standard to meet, given no Senate rule violation results in automatic expulsion.

Yep, Stevens should be expelled if the Senate wants him expelled and has grounds to do so. Voter intention doesn't prohibit that.

pretty much the same way charlie rangell got reelected after being found to illegally use rent stabilized apartments as a campaign office and "forgetting" to list $75,000 in rental income on his taxes ??? since he's the chairman of the house ways and means committee, i'm pretty sure he knows rental income is taxable income.

i believe mr rangell won something like 88% to 9%

DVaut1, what I understand David to be asking here is more along the lines of the following:

Harry Reid said that the Senate would never seat a convicted felon. But assume the electorate of a state elected a convicted felon to the Senate, when the relevant facts were known before the electoral process even began (i.e., pre-primary). Why should that person be expelled?

Note that this is a different question than a situation in which the electorate elected a 25-year-old to the Senate, because such a person is Constitutionally ineligible to serve.

I completely understand the position that Senators should never be expelled out of deference to the will of the Senator's constituents (I don't agree with it, mind you),


--------------------------

when senators were elected by state legislatures the state legs could and did routinely recall them and replace them at will if they screwed up.

I agree, why is it up to the Senate to kick him out against the will of the people? This gives more power to the Senate especially if they have the discretion to keep him around after he does them all sorts of favors.

state could go to supreme court i guess and they could decide.

also debbs ran for pres from prison and got 5% or something

I tend to agree David. They knew what they were getting. However, I think an expulsion is in order. If someone is shown to be corrupt (as we can assume from a convicted felon) then other members of the senate, the government in general, and the people of the US could make an argument that he could steal from non-Alaskans.

Seriously, this.

Make it to where he's a Senator that can't vote (Like a felon.. oh wait). It could make the amount of Senators needed to break filibuster 1 less, thus it's basically a Dem seat.

i'm pretty sure the cloture requirement would stay at 60.

He could be +EV for Alaska but unfairly hurts everybody else. Like if each state was voting in somebody to play a poker tourney and one state elects a known cheat who will likely do it again. It would be ok to not allow him to play. Not saying the Stevens case is like this per se, but it is a theoretical reason for ignoring the will of a state.