27

Yes the Senate could adopt a secret ballot rule, but other constitutional provisions combined with high partisanship make it practically impossible that the final results will be done through secret ballot. As other answers have mentioned, Article 1, Section 3, provides for the Senate to have sole power of trying impeachments. Similarly by Article 1, ...


17

Generally not. Federal court uses a principle known as the enrolled bill rule -- in deference to the coequal status of the three branches of government, the "enrolled bill" (the thing printed on fancy paper that actually went to the President for signature) is irrebuttable evidence that the law was properly passed. The courts cannot deal with inquiries into ...


13

The only relevant case heard by SCOTUS is Nixon v. US, 506 U.S. 224, where a federal judge was tried and convicted for actual crimes, but would not resign his position so continued to draw his salary. The key legal question was whether the matter is "justiciable" (meaning, not a political matter but a legal matter). Nixon's argument was that Senate Rule XI ...


8

For Mr. Petersen, the questions in general should have been elementary. The fact he did not know them is actually quite deplorable. To your questions specifically: Should Mr. Petersen, as a Juris Doctor, know of those things in his sleep? This is the wrong question. The question is: should an individual who has accepted a nomination to serve as a ...


8

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 ...


8

No Section 2, Clause 1 says: ... and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. Impeachment is explicitly carved our from the President's power to pardon.


5

To consider obstruction of justice, it's not necessary to consider the impact of a delayed nomination on the work of the Supreme Court. 18 USC 1505 provides that a felony has been committed by Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or ...


5

The leaders can't do it unilaterally, but the members collectively can expel other members. It requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. US Constitution, Article I, Section 5: 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. Normally this would ...


5

No a senator does not have that power under their elected position. However politics does not work like that. A senator could know the governor of their state very well. Governors could issue pardons which will release people from jail. Governors can also command a certain person to do something, like release a prisoner.


4

From my reading of the bill, and the manner in which it would amend the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, the changes do not prevent educational research, but rather, ensures that constraints are in place to prevent the identification of individual students as a result of that research. It also requires a student's parents to consent to such ...


4

Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution says The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Removal therefore follows automatically from conviction.


4

There is no such thing as transactional immunity to the attorney-client privilege. This is strictly a 5th Amendment concept. You can't immunize a witness to force a witness who is a client to testify about attorney-client privileged matters. A client can voluntarily waive the attorney-client privilege, but cannot be compelled to do so, unless the client is ...


3

The most relevant federal Obstruction of Justice type is from 18 USC 1505: Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any ...


3

Impeachment is unique in that it is a question of politics, not a question of law, that is being discussed at trial. The other exception is that the Senate, not the Supreme Court, is the High Court of Impeachment (that is, legal precedence is based on what the Senate says, not what the Supreme Court or any other appellant court says). There are a few minor ...


3

Senators, and anyone else for that matter, can ask any questions they want. The witness is required to answer the questions only if under subpoena, and only if the answer of the question would neither require disclosure of privileged information nor violate a 5th Amendment right (which is a form of privilege). Many things that are the subject of an NDA ...


3

Yes. US Constitution, at Article two, Section two, provides that the President has the power to nominate the justices and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is nothing restricting the President from doing this on any particular day from beginning to end of his term, and also no restriction on when the Senate may give their ...


3

Daubert is a milestone rule related to allowing scientific evidence, based upon a case and appeal in the 1990s. Anyone taking an Evidence course in law school since 1995 has studied it. It also became part of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 2000, which are also used in about half the states. A motion in limine is a basic part of criminal procedure in which ...


2

The only legal requirement for bill origination is that tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Otherwise, simultaneous origination is quite common. Differences are resolved through a process called "reconciliation" prior to passage.


2

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution specifies that 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 ...


2

I conclude (contrary to an earlier expression) that there is no such list, nor can there be, because the term "officer" is not well enough defined. The inferior officers are those officers who are not principal officers (as specified in the Constitution, e.g. ambassadors, cabinet members, judges), since there are only two kinds of officers. There is no ...


2

There is no definitive answer to any of these questions because nobody has ever attempted to do this or anything similar resulting in judicial review of this portion of the U.S. Constitution or of other authoritative interpretation of it outside the courts applied to a real life case as opposed to a mere advisory opinion. It has been suggested elsewhere ...


2

He appeared at a joint meeting of the Senate Judiciary and Commerce Committees, so he was only questioned by the members of those committees, and even then, only the ones who showed up and chose to ask questions. You can follow the links to see who's on those committees. Tomorrow he'll be appearing in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Those ...


1

Due Process is for defendants: The "fairness" provisions in Amendments 4-8 do not "typically" apply to defendants. They explicitly apply only to defendants. For instance, the 5th Amendment says: No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law... The basic idea is that the public is best served by having a fair,...


1

There's been a fair amount written recently on the constitutionality of using a secret ballot for the Senate vote on whether to convict or acquit the President. For those who want to dig deeper, here are some places to start: In September, former Republican Senator Jeff Flake claimed that if the Senate used a secret ballot, an overwhelming majorty of ...


1

Yes Article 1 Section 5 Clause 2 of the Constitution says: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member. Your proposed rule change (secret ballot) does not contradict any other part of the Constitution in particular Article 1 Section 3 Clause 6: ...


1

Yes. There is no constitutional provision prohibiting secret votes, and the House purportedly exercised its electoral powers in electing Thomas Jefferson in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824, by secret ballot. The basic framework is already present in the Senate rules, in rule XXIX ("all remarks, votes, and proceedings thereon shall also be kept ...


1

Because when the ruling of the chair is appealed, an immediate vote on the appeal must take place and this vote cannot be filibustered. Which means you only need 51 votes to overturn the chair's ruling, which then rewrites the Senate rule.


1

The only requirements are those specified in the Constitution, regarding age, citizenship and residence. Title 2 of the US Code has laws regarding elections governing timing of elections and soon, but nothing like a law saying "No sitting US Senator can run for the other senatorial position in his state". This article reviews aspects of congressional ...


1

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2015/05/29/op-olc-v031-p0083.pdf A rebuttal to the comment above referring to the limited “limited” authority of “second lieutenants and ensigns” is found on page 91 on the linked memorandum from 2008. The delegated sovereign authority granted every commissioned military officer ...


1

The Senate is under no Legal obligation to consider any particular nomination in any way. Some people have asserted that there is a constitutional duty imposed by the phrase "advise and consent" but that view has never commanded significant support, nor has any court that I know of included such a view in a decision. In general, US courts would consider this ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible