Eric

You continue to talk as if there were some constitutional basis for the Senate to seat Franken on a provisional basis. My understanding is that the citizens of the state -- through their legislative branches and it electoral laws -- have the constitutional authority for choosing their U.S. Senators. The U. S. Senate does not have the constitutional authority to chose (elect) who a state's Senator is or is not.

Here in Minnesota, the election has not been decided. There is no winner. According to Minnesota Election Law (as interpreted by the Minnesota Secretary or State, the Minnesota Governor and the Minnesota Attorney General's Office) will not be a winner until the Minnesota Election Election Court makes its determination. If the Senate went forward with seating a candidate, even on a provisional basis, it would be in effect making a decision about which candidate had won. Again, the Senate does not have the authority to decide who won and who lost until the election process has run its course. In Minnesota, the process will not have run its course until the contest phase it completed no matter how you might personally feel about that process.

Remember, just because the Minnesota Canvassing Board declared Franken to have received the most legally cast votes does not mean the Franken won; the reason being that the Canvassing Board's ruling is being contested with the framework of the Minnesota election process (the Election Contest Court is not independent of the election process; is is stipulated within Minnesota election law).

Again, according to Minnesota election law (as it has been interpreted by the state), no winner can be declared (and then certified) until after the "contest" is completed (which will happen when the Election Contest Court makes its final ruling on which candidate received the most legally cast vots). Because the citizens of our state (through its electoral process) have not yet chosen its Senator, it would be extremely inappropriate for the U.S. Senate to seat either of the contestants -- even on a provisional basis -- for in doing so the Senate would be usurping the constitutional right of the citizens of our state to elect our junior senator. (Again, according to Minnesota election law, the election process includes provisions for a recount and a for contest.)

It is true that the Senate is authorized to seat its members -- for good reason: without some kind of control, any Tom, Dick or Harry could just walk in and take a seat. But the criterion for seating are rather limited. First, a person who wishes to be must have been elected by the citizens of a state (and the state decides who this is). second, the person must meet the age and residency requirements -- which is basically a proforma.

There have been two occasions where the Senate did become more involved (one in Louisiana and one in New Hampshire), however, they are unlike Minnesota situation; for I believe that in both cases THE ELECTION PROCESS HAD BEEN COMPLETED. The problem was that in both cases, the process was seriously flawed, which left the Senate with the task of determining which of the candidates had won actually.

Here in Minnesota, the process is not completed! And if fact, despite some problems, it would appear that the process is moving forward in a fairly orderly matter towards a resolution -- and so far this process seems to lack any serious flaws.

There is one other issue, and that is the question of whether Minnesota Election Law is clear about when a candidate become a winner. Franken has raised this issue and has taken it to the Minnesota Supreme Court. His argument is that the Minnesota election law is not clear -- and that the Governor (a right-wing Republican) and the (Secretary of State (a Jim Hightower Democrat) both have it wrong. However, the Minnesota Attorney General (a Democrat) has, through her office, sided with Governor and the Secretary of State (and against Franken).

Now you might wish to argue that because a question may exist about the clarity of Minnesota election law, the U. S. Senate is therefore in a position to make an interpret the Minnesota law. However, as far as I know, the U.S. Senate doesn't have the constitutional authority to adjudicate what's right and what's wrong with a state's election law (or with Minnesota election law in particular). I would think that the appropriate place for that kind of adjudication would rest with a state's Supreme Court. Al Franken apparently agrees with me, for he has taken his concerns NOT TO the Senate but rather TO the Minnesota Supreme Court, where arguments have already been heard.

If I remember correctly, you have chided Senator Reid for not following through with the idea of a provisional seating -- and "spineless" is the term that I heard to describe his inaction. I am not a big fan of Reid; he talks before he thinks. I think that our Secretary of State Mark Ritchie might agree with me, at least with regards to Reid's provisional seating idea -- for upon hearing about Reid's idea, Ritchie referred to it as "horsepooy". Your continuing to float the idea of provisional seating as if it has some merit would suggest you think otherwise. If so, perhaps you could present your legal reasoning for why you think Mark Ritchie is mistaken. Perhaps you think that the Senate actually has the authority to chose a state's U.S. Senators -- on behalf of the citizens of the state. If so, I would be curious to know the ideas behind your thinking. If not, I would be curios to know why you continue to put forth an idea suggesting that the Senate has the Constitutional authority to do so. Thank you.