How is membership in the senate determined

The Constitution expressly grants to each house of Congress the authority to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members. As stated by a noted parliamentary authority, the final and exclusive right to determine membership in a democratically elected legislature "is so essential to the free election and independent existence of a legislative assembly, that it may be regarded as a necessary incident to every body of that description, which emanates directly from the people.

It is obvious that a power must be lodged somewhere to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of the members of each house composing the legislature; for otherwise there could be no certainty as to who were legitimately chosen members, and any intruder or usurper might claim a seat, and thus trample upon the rights and privileges and liberties of the people.

If lodged in any other, than the legislative body itself, its independence, its purity and even its existence and action may be destroyed, or put into imminent danger. The process of examination and inquiry within the Senate is generally initiated at the occasion of the swearing-in of the Senator-elect or Senator-designate by an objection or question to the seating of that individual.

The question may be raised by another Senator or by a petition submitted to the Senate often, in the case of a contested election, by the opposing candidate. The orderly and constitutional method of procedure in regard to administering the oath to newly elected Senators is that when any gentleman brings with him or presents credentials consisting of the certificate of his due election from the executive of his state, he is entitled to be sworn in, and all questions relating to his qualifications should be postponed and acted upon by the Senate afterwards.

If there were any other procedure, the result would be that a third of the Senators might be kept out of their seats for an indefinite time on the presenting of objection without responsibility, and never established before the Senate by any judicial inquiry.

The result of that might be that a change in the political power of this Government which the people desired to accomplish would be indefinitely postponed. The Senate has, however, in the past on less frequent occasions also refused to swear in and seat individuals pending Senate resolution of the matter of a challenge, even though credentials appearing valid on their face were presented.

One of the inquiries and judgments that the Senate may make concerning an individual presenting himself or herself for membership is an examination of that person's "qualifications" for office. Although in the past the Senate sometimes looked at a Senator-elect's or Senator-designate's "fitness for office" or "moral character" in judging the qualifications of such individual to be seated in the Senate, the extent of the authority of the Senate to judge "qualifications" under Article I, Section 5, clause 1, was expressly and narrowly delineated by the Supreme Court in the case of Powell v.

McCormack in The [Powell] decision apparently precludes the practice of the House or Senate, followed on numerous occasions during the 19th and 20th centuries, of excluding Members-elect for prior criminal, immoral, or disloyal conduct. It should be emphasized that the Powell decision concerned an exclusion based on judging "qualifications" of a Member-elect. As noted by the Court, the central question of that case meant that the Court "must determine the meaning of the phrase to 'be the Judge of the Qualifications of its own Members.

Modern decisions in the House or Senate determining "qualifications" are fairly rare, in part because of the clarification by the Supreme Court in Powell v. McCormack, but also because modern communications and media coverage make it more likely that an actual disqualifying condition such as a candidate's age or lack of citizenship would be revealed before nominations by a major political party are made. In judging congressional elections, the practice and experience in the Senate and the House concerning the implications of finding a Member-elect or Member-designate disqualified or "ineligible" is clear, and is remarkably consistent given the great potential for partisan division on this issue when it arises with respect to a particular Member-elect.

The overwhelming weight of authority in both the Senate and the House demonstrates that the ineligibility of the majority candidate in a congressional election, whether because of death, disqualification, disability, or other incapacity before or after the election, gives no title or right to the office to the runner-up candidate, but rather merely creates a "vacancy" in the office from that state.

The limitations on judging the requisite "qualifications" of Members-elect in an exclusion procedure set out in the Powell decision do not, however, prohibit or restrict the Senate from examining and judging the "election" or selection of an individual who presents "credentials" to be seated in the Senate.

Under the authority of Article I, Section 5, clause 1, to judge the "elections" and "returns" of its own Members, the Senate has clear constitutional authority, and has in the past exercised such authority, to look behind the certificate of election or the certificate of appointment, that is, the "return" or "credentials" of a Member-elect or Member-designate, to determine if the person presenting himself or herself for seating has been duly chosen or selected.

The Court in Powell v. McCormack expressly found that the House may not exclude one who possesses the three constitutional qualifications to office and is "duly elected" by his constituency. Concerning the direct constitutional history of the provision regarding the judging of elections and returns, there occurred very little discussion in the Convention of , as the final authority and power over seating their own Members was an authority that the Parliament in England had centuries before wrested away from the King and the chancery.

The authority for each house of Congress to ultimately determine who are its lawful and rightful members is traditionally one of democratic legislatures. In a discussion of the derivation of this provision of the United States Constitution, Tucker and Tucker explain:.

Article I, section 5. The provisions of this article are in substance such as were practiced in Great Britain before the Revolution, and are usual in all legislative bodies under free governments.

The first gives to each House the right to be the judge of "the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members. Prior to that time the decision of these questions had rested with the king; but after the statute of and the returns of members of the House of Commons were in Chancery and not to the Parliament, and judges of assize were directed by the Chancery to inquire into questions of undue returns and elections.

The propriety of each House being the judge of these matters is very obvious. No power external to the House could decide them without an intrusion upon the question of its organization, which would be fatal to its freedom and independence.

The right of the House, as a body, to determine upon the right of each member to a place in that body is so obvious that it needs no comment. The power of election is vested, as we have seen, in the constituency under the laws of the States; but whether that constituency have elected qualified persons, and whether the officers holding the election have made proper returns, is left to the House in order to prevent intrusion of persons disqualified or not duly elected upon their deliberations.

The Supreme Court, in a decision subsequent to Powell v. McCormack , clearly affirmed the Senate's broad authority to be the final judge of the elections and returns of its own Members. The Court in Roudebush v. Hartke , ruled that a state's own contest procedures for a senatorial election could not usurp or deprive the Senate of its constitutional duties and authority to exercise "an unconditional and final judgment" over the seating of its own Members.

Earlier, the Supreme Court, in Barry v. United States ex rel. Cunningham , 30 had acknowledged the Senate's authority to secure information it needed in determining an election contest where corruption and fraud in the election had been alleged. The right of the Senate or the House to be the final judge over the seating of its own Members was clearly recognized and reaffirmed as an exclusive authority which is not subject to judicial review by then-judge Scalia writing the opinion for the court of appeals in Morgan v.

United States. In noting the "exclusive authority of each House to decide whether to seat its own members," 33 the court found such procedure to be unreviewable by the judiciary:. It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment" of an issue to another branch of government to the exclusion of the courts The exclusion of others — and in particular others who are judges — could not be more evident.

Hence, without need to rely upon the amorphous and partly prudential doctrine of "political questions," [citations omitted] we simply lack jurisdiction to proceed.

In numerous cases in the past the Senate has examined and "judged" the election or return of a Senator-elect or Senator-designate to determine if the person presenting credentials was lawfully or properly chosen by the electorate, by the state legislature, or by a governor of a state. The cases, instances, and precedents in which the propriety or legality of the appointment of a Member-designate to the Senate was questioned in the Senate have generally been characterized by parliamentarians and historians as "elections" challenges, contests, or cases.

As noted above, prior to the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in requiring the popular election of Senators, Senators were chosen by the various state legislatures, although the governor of a state could fill a vacancy when the legislature was in "recess.

The Senate has been actively engaged in bilateral and multilateral Parliamentary relations. The resolutions can be broadly categorized as resolutions not mentioned in the Constitution and the resolutions mentioned in the Constitution. The resolutions not mentioned in the Constitution have been dealt with in rules to and the resolutions mentioned in the Constitution are governed by rules to The Senate business is transacted, as per rule 27, in the order in which it appears on the Orders of the Day, unless the Chairman directs otherwise.

The Secretary prepares Orders of the Day and makes its copy available for use of every member and any other person entitled to speak or participate in the proceedings.

He arranges the Government business in such order as the Leader of the House or the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs or any other Minister, authorized by the Leader of the House, intimates a day before the commencement of the sitting. The relative precedence of private members' Bills is determined by ballot at least five days prior to the day with reference to which the ballot is held.

The term 'Parliament' is usually associated with the British system of parliamentary government, a system which has influenced the development of representative assemblies in many parts of the world.

In pre-revolutionary France the word 'Parlement' was applied to courts of justice which were not representative bodies at all. The word itself is derived from the Latin 'parliamentum' and the French word 'parler' and originally meant a talk; and talking is, of course, what Parliaments do most of the time.

The origins of Parliaments and similar assemblies can be traced back to many centuries. They are the central institutions of many systems of government. Although conceived in ancient times, they seem to be infinitely adaptable and their numbers have proliferated and developed many forms in modern times. At the commencement of the first session, after each general election to the National Assembly; and at the commencement of the first session of each parliamentary year, the President address both Houses of Parliament assembled together and inform the Majlis-e-Shoora Parliament of the causes of its summoning.

One-fourth of the total membership of the Senate is present. The role of the Senate is to promote national cohesion and harmony and to alleviate fears of the smaller provinces regarding domination by any one province because of its majority, in the National Assembly.

Thus, the Senate in Pakistan, over the years, has emerged as an essential organ and a stabilizing factor of the federation. Each member may ask three starred and five unstarred questions for any one day. During the course of each two-year congressional session, the Senate will refer approximately 3, bills and resolutions to its committees.

Committees act on a small proportion of these, as some are only meant to call attention to issues or test future support. Approximately bills and resolutions are reported to the full Senate.

The Senate committee studies the bill and summons numerous witnesses to hearings on the bill, including members of Congress, administrative officials, representatives from the business sector, and the general public. Once released from the committee, the bill goes to the Senate floor for consideration. Unlike in the House, bills in the Senate are not subject to the same type of parameters set by the House Committee on Rules.

The Senate does not have a rules committee like the House Rules Committee that exists to manage floor procedures because the Senate was meant to have a more open, deliberative method of exploring policies, which allow senators to offer amendments that have no relation to the underlying bill. This makes the Senate almost a leaderless body in the sense that any senator can take control of the agenda by offering an amendment and then force a debate on that amendment.

As a result, it can be very difficult to get a bill passed in the Senate. For example, if most Republicans and Democrats want to pass a transportation bill, but one senator is against the bill, that one senator can bring up an amendment on a divisive issue e.

During a typical floor debate on an individual piece of legislation, every senator is given the opportunity to speak for or against a bill, and each has the right to unlimited debate.

To ensure legislation continues to move in a timely fashion, the Senate works out unanimous consent agreements that set parameters around debates.

The Senate must first agree to consider a piece of legislation by voting on a motion to proceed , which requires 60 votes. The Senate majority leader attempts to get all senators to agree by unanimous consent to take up the bill he wishes to have debated.

If senators withhold their consent, they are implicitly threatening extended debate on the question of considering the bill. Senators may do this because they oppose the bill or because they wish to delay consideration of one measure in the bill in the hope of influencing the fate of some other, possibly unrelated, measure. A filibuster is a method of extending debate by introducing extraneous or unrelated issues to a legislation, an appointment or other issue that the Senate is debating.

Throughout the 19th century, the Senate left ending the filibuster up to the filibustering senators. When they felt they had been adequately heard, they could give up the floor and allow debate to move on to a vote. Important exceptions to the filibuster rule include nominations to executive branch positions and federal judgeships, which only require a simply majority rather than three-fifths to end debate.

There is a debate over the filibuster. One side argues it is not needed because our Founding Fathers structured the Senate in such a way that the minority view is protected. Others disagree, saying the filibuster is required to protect the minority.

The Federalist Society explains the filibuster further 4 min :. When the Senate and House pass the same bill with different policy language, the differences are worked out in a conference committee. A conference committee is a temporary committee made up of members from both the Senate and the House who work together to come to a consensus about the different provisions in the bill. Each chamber then has to approve the final compromise legislative text and it is then sent to the President to be signed into law.

Once sent, the president has ten days to sign or veto the bill. If the president vetoes the bill, it can still become a law if two-thirds of the Senate and two-thirds of the House then vote in favor of the bill. Glossary of Terms. Learn about their priorities and consider how to contact them. Reach out: You are a catalyst. Finding a common cause is a great opportunity to develop relationships with people who may be outside of your immediate network.