Harry Reid is not bigger than the Constitution.
But see: Article I, Section 5, Clause 1:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, ..."
The Supreme Court, in Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham, 279 U.S. 597, 615 (1929) held that refusal to permit a person presenting credentials in due form to take the oath of office does not deprive the State which elected such person of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Dingy Harry Reid is on solid grounds.
True, but of course, the Constitution is silent about the Democratic Party Caucus. They could refuse to make him a member of that caucus (this is what they threatened Lieberman with), but the effects on black America would be the very same as turning him away at the door.
The juicy part of this is yet to come, at some point, Barry will be asked to give a definitive opinion on this. He sided with letting Lieberman rejoin the Caucus, how can he turn his back on a brotha from his own state?!!
If he waffles on this, look for a return of the "he's not black enough" stuff that Oprah put to rest a year ago.
That was violated when the 17th amendment was passed. The entire section is dealing with amendments, the clause deals with non allowable amendments to the Constitution:
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate