Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
You can't make this crap up...
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3071849" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>The Supreme Court has held in quite definite terms that the exclusive qualifications to serve in the House are those found in Article I, Section 2, Clauses 1-2. The Court held in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack" target="_blank"><em>Powell v. McCormack</em>, 395 U.S. 486 (1969)</a> that those clauses are not subject to being supplemented by any other action; moreover, while the houses of Congress are permitted to <em>expel</em> a member, they cannot refuse to seat an member-elect.</p><p></p><p>The principle was extended in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton" target="_blank"><em>U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</em>, 514 U.S. 779 (1995)</a>, which struck down term limits imposed by state, not federal law.</p><p></p><p>So, in short, the Constitution is the explicit, exclusive list of qualifications to serve as a Representative or Senator in the United States Congress. Other qualifications--including term limits--can absolutely be imposed, but only by following the procedures set forth in Article V.</p><p></p><p>As to Mayor Barry, he's not really a federal official--yes, DC is a federal enclave, but that doesn't make him an official of the US government. If the people of DC are okay with him being their mayor, that's their problem. As to other positions in government, well, again, that's a function of the rules governing the position.</p><p></p><p>As a point of interest, in trials involving sensitive materials, there is one person in the courtroom who <em>cannot</em> be required to hold a clearance: the judge. To do so would compromise the independence of the judiciary by making the judge dependent upon the executive to serve (effectively allowing the executive to pick its own judge, whose continued service is at the executive's pleasure).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3071849, member: 13624"] The Supreme Court has held in quite definite terms that the exclusive qualifications to serve in the House are those found in Article I, Section 2, Clauses 1-2. The Court held in [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack'][I]Powell v. McCormack[/I], 395 U.S. 486 (1969)[/URL] that those clauses are not subject to being supplemented by any other action; moreover, while the houses of Congress are permitted to [I]expel[/I] a member, they cannot refuse to seat an member-elect. The principle was extended in [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton'][I]U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton[/I], 514 U.S. 779 (1995)[/URL], which struck down term limits imposed by state, not federal law. So, in short, the Constitution is the explicit, exclusive list of qualifications to serve as a Representative or Senator in the United States Congress. Other qualifications--including term limits--can absolutely be imposed, but only by following the procedures set forth in Article V. As to Mayor Barry, he's not really a federal official--yes, DC is a federal enclave, but that doesn't make him an official of the US government. If the people of DC are okay with him being their mayor, that's their problem. As to other positions in government, well, again, that's a function of the rules governing the position. As a point of interest, in trials involving sensitive materials, there is one person in the courtroom who [I]cannot[/I] be required to hold a clearance: the judge. To do so would compromise the independence of the judiciary by making the judge dependent upon the executive to serve (effectively allowing the executive to pick its own judge, whose continued service is at the executive's pleasure). [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
You can't make this crap up...
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom