There is no conflict between the Senate rules and the Constitution. The Senate may adopt whatever rules it wants to – except those that explicitly violate another part of the Constitution itself – for its membership.

For example, the Senate is not allowed to accept someone who has not been a U.S. citizen for at least nine years, or who does not live in the state one expects to represent, or who has not reached one's 30th birthday.

However, the Senate is perfectly within its rights to, for example, refuse to admit someone appointed by a governor who has been credibly accused of trying to sell that very appointment.

Once again, as a matter of common sense, the power to expel – which is both undisputable and absolute here – is the power to exclude.

Furthermore, distinguishing a lawful gubernatorial appointment – a perfectly normal procedure in fact – from an "election" or a "return" is hair-splitting worthy of a certain other U.S. senator, whose continued membership was also in question and who has only very recently left.

Note that according to the same Constitutional passage, each house is also the judge of the qualifications of its members. If the Senate decides that appointment by a particular governor is not sufficient qualification in this case because of the widespread perception of corruption and the desire to discourage further corruption, who has the right to tell them otherwise? No one.

Chris: maybe, just maybe, some senators are more concerned about the honor of the Senate – and of the country, especially in the face of foreign thugocracies and barbarians who will want to test the new Administration's mettle than about the total number of Ds after their colleagues' names.

Cheers,

Jeff Deutsch

It just doesn't make a lot of sense.