One popular bit of Senatorial Steak Sauce that's been used to cover for the decision to retain Joe Lieberman in the chair of the Homeland Security Committee is that he can be removed at any time should he step out of line somewhere down the road. Here's what Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) told Rachel Maddow on November 12th:

If he does retain his chairmanship, we still exert oversight over him and control over him. He doesn't have the ability to just do whatever he wants. The caucus still has the right to remove him from that position at any time if he starts going off on some kind of tangent.

Is this true? There's an awful lot riding on it, isn't there? I'd hate for it not to be true, after he just assured millions of Americans that it was, on national TV.

But my reading is that it just isn't so.

Remember when Senators Sherrod Brown and Dianne Feinstein told their constituents that this decision wasn't going to be made until January? Well, the reason they said that is that putting names to committee assignments is a two-stage process. The majority and minority parties each separately decide for themselves who they're going to nominate to the chairmanships and ranking memberships (as well as the rank-and-file membership of each side) on each committee. Then, at the beginning of a new Congress, the full Senate votes on the "organizing resolutions," which are just what they sound like: resolutions detailing the organization of the committees, incorporating the majority and minority party decisions about committee rosters made in their separate meetings.

This year, the Democrats and Republicans made their separate decisions this week. And the organizing resolutions ratifying those decisions will be voted on in January. That's what Brown and Feinstein were talking about when they pointed to January. Of course, their letters to their constituents neglected to point out that the substance of the decisions would be made in November, and only pretty much rubber stamped in January.

Not helpful.

But it's instructive. January is in fact when the decisions about committee leadership will be formalized by the full Senate, just as was the case in the last Congress, which adopted S. Res. 27 and S. Res. 28 on January 12, 2007.

Here's the relevant text of S. Res. 27:

110th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. RES. 27

To constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the One Hundred Tenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 12, 2007

Mr. REID submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To constitute the majority party's membership on certain committees for the One Hundred Tenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen.

     Resolved, That the following shall constitute the majority party's membership on the following committees for the One Hundred Tenth Congress, or until their successors are chosen:

[...]

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS: Mr. Lieberman (Chairman), Mr. Levin, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Carper, Mr. Pryor, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. Obama, Mrs. McCaskill, and Mr. Tester.

As you can see, this means that Lieberman was designated by the full Senate as the Chairman of the committee for the 110th Congress, or until a successor is chosen. And how will such a successor be chosen? By a Senate resolution, of course, just as Lieberman was chosen in Senate Resolution 27.

In the ordinary course of things, the minority party has no incentive to cause trouble on the organizing resolutions. No matter what they do, they won't have the votes to claim the chairs of those committees, since they're in the minority. So as a matter of course, they agree to those resolutions by unanimous consent, because they've made their decisions as a party, gotten the best deal available to them, and want their own preferences ratified alongside those of the majority.

So here's the thing. If Senate Democrats need to keep Lieberman happy for fear that he'll refuse to provide a 60th vote for shutting down Republican filibusters, but some future circumstance should arise that nonetheless requires Lieberman's removal from the chair, what are the chances that the Democrats will have a clear path to passing the resolution necessary to formalize that removal? Keep in mind that a resolution revising Lieberman's role hasn't necessarily got any changes in it that Republicans have any particular interest in seeing made. They've already gotten the best deal available, and changing the lineup at Homeland Security profits them nothing.

So if Lieberman's behavior is such that the Democrats decide to revoke his chairmanship during the course of the 111th Congress (and God only knows what he'll have to do to finally drive them to that decision, but presumably it'd be behavior disadvantaging Democrats and helping Republicans), wouldn't the Republicans be quite content with filibustering the resolution naming his replacement?

Who will be the 60th vote for cloture on that resolution? Surely the boast that Lieberman can be removed "at any time" is backed by a solid count of 60 Senators, right? Why else would anybody make such a bold assertion on national television?

Senator Bayh? Have you got an answer for us?