Background example:
People in California want to remove a senator from Kentucky.
Can this be performed?
How can it be performed?
-
3They move to Kentucky and vote for the other guy. Senators are not removable except by death, resignation or not being elected.– user6726Jan 14, 2021 at 21:03
-
Does the Kentucky senator need to acknowledge any communications from people of California (such as phone calls, emails, or letters)?– Thomas MatthewsJan 14, 2021 at 21:05
-
6@ThomasMatthews No. Nor does a Kentucky Senator need to acknowledge any communication from people of Kentucky.– ohwillekeJan 14, 2021 at 22:05
-
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.– feetwet ♦Jan 15, 2021 at 14:44
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
The only way that a member of the House of Representatives, or a U.S. Senator can be removed from office (other than by resignation, death, or expiration of a term of office without being re-elected) is by a two-thirds vote of the chamber removing that member. The relevant provision of the United States Constitution is Article I, Section 5, Clause 2 which states:
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
So, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives may be removed by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. House, and a U.S. Senator may be removed by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate.
This has been done five times since 1789 in the U.S. House, most recently in 2002. It has been done fifteen times since 1789 in the U.S. Senate (the most recent 14 times in 1861 and 1862 in connection with the U.S. Civil War).
The case of William Blount in 1797 established the precedent that expulsion of a member by a chamber, rather than impeachment, is the proper process to remove a member of Congress.
Members of Congress may not be recalled, and are not automatically removed from office upon conviction of a crime.
Apart from the expulsion process, there is no way for voters or states to remove U.S. Senators not from their own state, something that doesn't make sense to be possible in the overall context of the structure of the United States government under the U.S. Constitution.
Senate Rule XXIII in part provides that ``if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered;''
A quorum of the full Senate and not just those sworn in for the trial is required.
The Senate rules in the case of an expulsion of a member are analogous.
answered Jan 14, 2021 at 21:46
-
-
@AzorAhai-him- "Rule XXIII in part provides that ``if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two-thirds of the members present, a judgment of acquittal shall be entered;'' govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-99sdoc33/html/CDOC-99sdoc33.htm A quorum of the full Senate and not just those sworn in for the trial is required. Jan 15, 2021 at 22:00
-
I guess I'm confused how to interpret the legalese then, if "members present" doesn't mean "not the full Senate." If 20 GOP Senators boycotted, could Trump be convicted with 53 yeas, 7 nays and 20 abstentions? Jan 15, 2021 at 22:04
-
@AzorAhai-him- If 20 Senators boycotted, 54 votes would be required to convict. The number of members present who vote to convict must be at least twice as large as the number of members present who do not vote to convict in any regard. An abstention or "present" vote counts as a "no" vote. Jan 15, 2021 at 22:09
-
That all sounds fine until you said abstention are nos? How is abstention different from not being present? Does the Senator literally have to not be in the room? Jan 15, 2021 at 23:02