Ah, the GOP - the law and order party.

Steven's is emblematic of the arrogant denialism of the Republican Party since the heady days of Reagan and his regressivism, which trumpets it's ideology as a velvet glove, while hiding the iron fist....

"I'm OK, you're so-so"

If he does win, he will step down and Sarah Palin will run for his seat, win it, and then run for prez in 2012.

On the contrary, if he wins, after the election, the GOP Senators will simply reverse course and pretend they never said anything of the kind. They will then declare that Democrat's efforts to expel Stevens are a partisan witch hunt. This is their standard procedure for these kinds of things.

A dissent: if the voters of Alaska decide to keep a convicted felon in the Senate, the other 99 Senators have no power to reject him.

They can deny him committee assignments, etc. But they can NOT deprive the people of Alaska half of their Constitutionally-guaranteed votes in the US Senate (even if he can't cast a vote OUTSIDE the Senate), and the rest of the country has no right to deny Alaska the results of a free election.

In the immortal word of a defeated candidate: "The people have spoken -- and now they must be punished."

steven,

you're not reading from the script. sen. ted says he's not convicted, don't you remember?

Anonymous:

"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."

So yes, they can deny the results of this election.

A dissent: if the voters of Alaska decide to keep a convicted felon in the Senate, the other 99 Senators have no power to reject him.

The US Constitution disagrees. Even if one argues that refusing to seat Stevens as a validly elected Senator would be an abuse of the Senate's Art. I, Sec. 5 power to be the "judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members", which is a tenable position (though since this a plenary Constitutional power, no other body would have authority to stop such an abuse) it is clearly within the Senate's power, and not an abuse, to expel Stevens, under its (also in Art. I, Sec. 5) power to "determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

I figured you'd have chapter and verse, cmdicely.

The intertubes make this easy to research, folks. The U.S. Constitution Online is a nice site.

2/3 of the senate would need to vote to expel a convicted Republican.

Hmmm... I've not heard anyone predicting the Dems picking up 17 seats.

This would enrage me perhaps if the Democrats would hold a vote to bounce William "Freezer Loot" Jefferson to the curb.

Perhaps the Republicans can make a play for the "reform" angle if they DO turn their backs on Stevens and the Dems let Jefferson fester?

It's tempting to think this is the Republicans' culture of corruption taken to comedic levels, but it's just as accurate to describe this as the Republicans' culture of chutzpah.

It isn't intrinsically Republican, as you all know. Democrats have done this in Louisiana and New Jersey. Democrats called on Clinton to resign the presidency rather than put the U.S. through the trauma of an impeachment; then all the Democrats in the Senate who voted not to remove Clinton from office nevertheless denounced him.

If Stevens resigns after winning re-election then the seat probably remains with Republicans. And the voters all know this as well as you and I know it.

Really, your persistent belief that the Democrats are all unblemished is idiotic.

2/3 of the senate would need to vote to expel a convicted Republican.

Hmmm... I've not heard anyone predicting the Dems picking up 17 seats.

How many Republicans, especially of those up for reelection in 2010, want to justify voting to keep a convicted felon—convicted of felonies stemming from ethical violations connected to his position in the Senate—in the Senate?

Pushing for expulsion is the right thing to do, and if Republicans really want to fight to keep Stevens around, that's a political gift to the Democrats for 2010.

This would enrage me perhaps if the Democrats would hold a vote to bounce William "Freezer Loot" Jefferson to the curb.

While Rep. Jefferson certainly has the appearance of guilt, and the House could hold its own inquiry and seek to expel him, its worth noting that unlike Stevens, Jefferson actually hasn't been convicted of anything, at least not yet (and was booted from the Ways and Means committee even without being convicted of anything.)

If Jefferson gets through the two elections (November run-off and December general) he'll need to win to be reelected, and if he is convicted (he goes to trial in December), then he'll be in a position similar to that that Stevens will be in if he is reelected.

Really, your persistent belief that the Democrats are all unblemished is idiotic.

The poster to whom you responded with this neither said nor implied that "the Democrats are all unblemished", so your argument against this supposed "persistent belief" (which you have no rational basis for describing as either "persistent" or the poster's "belief") is more of your typical strawman-beating.

Could we get more information just coming to light about McCain lying under oath about the Keating Five scandal.

A dissent: if the voters of Alaska decide to keep a convicted felon in the Senate, the other 99 Senators have no power to reject him.

The only way to remove a sitting senator from the US Senate is by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

The Senate can and should remove him, but I suspect they will not, or if they do it will be a long drawn out affair with the Senate Ethics committee first taking his case on, and then further stalling for appeals to be decided in the courts.

Our government was not set up for speedy action.

Many Alaskans are saying Stevens will win...he is Alaska and senate bylaws state that he cannot be thrown out until all appeals have been exhausted...and then there is Stevens ungodly vengefullness willing to do anything or expose anyone who stands against him. He's already going after those who prosecuted him...the man is insanely ruthless. He will take as many people down with him as he can...how delightful. The difference between him and many senators is just that he got overly exposed and told the FBI to go F**k themselves. He thought he was untouchable and came out as stupidly stubborn. Unlike republicans, I would still call for him to resign even if he were a democrat. Look how they covered for Vitter's illegal hypocrisy...they cheered him back.lol

Whether Stevens wins still matters. If he loses, then obviously the Democrats pick up a seat. If he wins there is still a shot for another Republican to wind up with the seat.

Current law calls for a special election to replace Stevens if he were to be reelected and later resign or be expelled. There is also some question as to whether Alaska's current law is Constitutional, leaving open the possibility that the seat will be decided by Sarah Palin (or the current Lieutenant Governor should the nightmare scenario occur and Palin leave Alaska to become VP.)

Of course Sara Palin is hoping that:
1. Ted Stevens wins election.
2. Ted Stevens then resigns or is forced out.
3. Gov. Palin runs and wins the special election.
4. Sen. Palin has senatorial experience, the kind that she has been deriding as "less than experienced than the mayor of Wasilla."
5. Sen. Palin runs for prez in 2012.

G-reedy O-ld P=hilistines

Powell vs. McCormack, 1969

What are the Alaska rules? A special election? Does the Governor appoint a successor if he resigns after winning? Does is it matter when he resigns before or after the new Congress ccnvenes?

Just curious . . .

I do think anonymous at 2:41 has a point.
if Stevens wins election on Tuesday, we are left with only one of the three points that Steve mentions...Mitch McConnell's objection to a convicted felon serving in the Senate.
On principle, I cannot object to a convicted felon serving in the Senate. As a liberal, I am constantly berating our society's increasing tendency towards thinking of retribution as justice.
However, I do think it is fair that he not serve in the senate while still serving his sentence (even if it does not involve confinement).
We should punish criminals...but once they have served their sentence, we should give them every opportunity to rejoin society.

It's also a fundamental misreading of the actual Constitutional law by CMDicely to insist that 99 Senators have the authority to reject an elected Senator.

There are two facts that contradict Dicely's claim.

First, the Powell decision in 1969, which concerned a member of the House who was re-elected after being expelled. The Court held that the Constitution lays out specific requirements for becoming a member of Congress, so the House of Representatives has no power to add more. They left open the question whether, having sworn in a member, the House could then expel them, but the finding in Powell vs. McCormack clearly shows Dicely is wrong.

Second, the provision of the Constitution that Dicely sites was superseded in part by the 17th amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof..."

Since this comes AFTER the expulsion clause Dicely cites from ignorance of the meaning of Constitutional amendments, and BEFORE the 1969 Powell decision which reinforces the meaning of "elected by the people thereof...", there really isn't much to the idea that the other 99 Senators have any right to deprive Alaskans of their choice, even if it happens to be a convicted felon.

A lot of hand waving there anonymous.

If the Senate doesn't have the power to expel Ted Stevens then just what does the Constitution mean by "with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member"?

A court decision contradicting the Constitution's explicit wording isn't very firm legal ground to stake one's political career on. I'd be willing to bet that even this Supreme Court would still find in favor of Congress having this power.

First, the Powell decision in 1969, which concerned a member of the House who was re-elected after being expelled. The Court held that the Constitution lays out specific requirements for becoming a member of Congress, so the House of Representatives has no power to add more.

They left open the question whether, having sworn in a member, the House could then expel them, but the finding in Powell vs. McCormack clearly shows Dicely is wrong.

Not on the principal argument, which is on precisely the point that you correctly note Powell v. McCormack does not address.

Second, the provision of the Constitution that Dicely sites was superseded in part by the 17th amendment

Uh, no, it wasn't. The 17th Amendment changed the manner in which Senators were selected (making it more like the House in that regard), nothing in it restricts the power of each house to expel its own members on a 2/3 vote.