Rep. Mo Brooks: ‘I Will Vote for Roy Moore’ Because ‘Democrats Will Do Great Damage to Our Country’

They can’t kick out Moore!

There was talk that the AL AG could do it (I think as his capacity as Republican chairman. But in thinking about :
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. - 17th Amendment to the Constitution
it became pretty clear to me that the winner of the upcoming senatorial election becomes senator, any Alabama state law to the contrary notwithstanding.
Not only so, but it might be argued that the senator’s term is six years and - anything in the prior parts of the Constitution notwithstanding - that’s how long the senator stays in office. Maybe the 17th Amendment prevents the removal of a senator except by the voters after a six year term.
If you favor a constitutional amendment for any reason, be careful what you ask for - you might get it - as H.L. Menken might put it - good and hard.

This is to fill Sessions seat, so I think Moore will have to run again soon, maybe in 2018 or 2020.

Yes, and the part of the 17th Amendment which is germane to that is:
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
There is I think no controversy over the way AL has conformed to that provision. My point about the first paragraph
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
of the amendment is that it states the terms of senators, and does not say that any senator can be removed in any way if he doesn’t wanna go. Hence, an (extremely literal, perhaps) interpretation of that is that no way of removing a senator (other than not reelecting him) which might exist in any previously ratified portion of the Constitution (or any law providing for such) has been “controlling legal authority” since 1913.
I confess that I know of no evidence that the original intent of the 17th Amendment ratifiers was that they thought that they were repealing anything other than the representation of the state governments (as opposed to the people of the states) in Congress.
The 17th Amendment has been accepted as law since 1913, and I am strictly speaking of it as law, in its own terms. The procedure by which all of the state governments “consented” to have their “equal representation in the senate” extinguished was, however, irregular. And - considering the way the Senate has behaved subsequently in confirming and not impeaching judges and SCOTUS justices who have systematically denigrated states’ rights - arguably tragic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.