The Constitution has an answer for seditious members of Congress

[RAB910]

The reasoning here is very simple. All members of Congress swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, which establishes a republican form of government. The whole point of a republic is that contests for power are conducted through a framework of rules and democratic elections, where all parties agree to respect the result whether they lose or win. Moreover, the premise of this lawsuit was completely preposterous — arguing in effect that states should not be allowed to set their own election rules if that means more Democrats can vote — and provides no evidence whatsoever for false allegations of tens of thousands of instances of voter fraud. Indeed, several of the representatives who support the lawsuit were themselves just elected by the very votes they now say are fraudulent. The proposed remedy — having Republican-dominated legislatures in only the four states that gave Biden his margin of victory select Trump electors — would be straight-up election theft.

In other words, this lawsuit, even though it didn't succeed, is a flagrant attempt to overturn the constitutional system and impose through authoritarian means the rule of a corrupt criminal whose doltish incompetence has gotten hundreds of thousands of Americans killed. It is a "seditious abuse of the judicial process," as the states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin jointly wrote in their response to Texas trying to steal their elections.

The Constitution, as goofy and jerry-rigged as it is, stipulates that insurrectionists who violate their oath are not allowed to serve in Congress. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to exclude Confederate Civil War traitors, says that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … who … having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same[.]" How the Supreme Court ruled, or whether Republicans actually believe their lunatic claims, is irrelevant. It's still insurrection even if it doesn't work out.

Democrats would have every right, both under the Constitution and under the principle of popular sovereignty outlined in the Declaration of Independence, to convene a traitor-free Congress (also including similar acts committed by Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler, and others), and pass such laws as would be necessary to preserve the American republic. That might include a national popular vote to decide the presidency, ironclad voting rights protections, a ban on gerrymandering either national or state district boundaries, full representation for the citizens of D.C. and Puerto Rico, regulations on internet platforms that are inflaming violent political extremism, a clear legal framework for the transfer of power that ends the lame duck period, and so on. States would be forced to agree to these measures before they can replace their traitorous representatives and senators. If the Supreme Court objects, more pro-democracy justices can be added.

https://theweek.com/articles/954673/constitution-answer-seditious-members-congress

[FreepFryer]

1. Tired point, made and debunked. Signing onto a lawsuit does not insurrection make. (Nt)

[RAB910]

2. It was "debunked" like Trump "debunked" the idea that he lost a fair election

[FreepFryer]

3. Don't be like them w the magical thinking. Read the law and understand the real options available.

There are things Speaker Pelosi And the House can do to respond to violations of law, ethics and the integrity of our institution but ‘sedition’ in the form of a lawsuit doesn’t rise to that level.

excerpt:

The House of Representatives—in the same manner as the United States Senate—is expressly authorized within the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 5, clause 2) to discipline or "punish" its own Members. This authority of the House to discipline a Member for "disorderly Behaviour" is in addition to any criminal or civil liability that a Member of the House may incur for particular misconduct, and is used not merely to punish an individual Member, but to protect the institutional integrity of the House of Representatives, its proceedings, and its reputation.

The House may discipline its Members without the necessity of Senate concurrence. The most common forms of discipline in the House are now "expulsion," "censure," or "reprimand," although the House may also discipline its Members in other ways, including fine or monetary restitution, loss of seniority, and suspension or loss of certain privileges. In addition to such sanctions imposed by the full House of Representatives, the standing committee in the House which deals with ethics and official conduct matters, the House Committee on Ethics—formerly called the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct—is authorized by House Rules to issue a formal "Letter of Reproval" for misconduct which does not rise to the level of consideration or sanction by the entire House of Representatives. Additionally, the Committee on Ethics has also expressed its disapproval of certain conduct in informal letters and communications to Members.

The House may generally discipline its Members for violations of statutory law, including crimes; for violations of internal congressional rules; or for any conduct which the House of Representatives finds has reflected discredit upon the institution. Each house of Congress has disciplined its own Members for conduct which has not necessarily violated any specific rule or law, but which was found to breach its privileges, demonstrate contempt for the institution, or reflect discredit on the House or Senate.

When the most severe sanction of expulsion has been employed in the House, the underlying conduct deemed to have merited removal from office has historically involved either disloyalty to the United States, or the violation of a criminal law involving the abuse of one's official position, such as bribery. The House of Representatives has actually expelled only five Members in its history, but a number of Members, facing likely congressional discipline for misconduct, have resigned from Congress or have been defeated in an election prior to any formal House action.

A "censure" is a formal, majority vote in the House on a resolution disapproving a Member's conduct, generally with the additional requirement that the Member stand at the "well" of the House chamber to receive a verbal rebuke and reading of the resolution by the Speaker. Twenty-three Members of the House have been censured for various forms of misconduct, including (in the 19th century) insulting or other unparliamentary language on the floor or assaults on other Members, as well as, more recently, financial improprieties.

A "reprimand" in the House involves a lesser level of disapproval of the conduct of a Member than that of a "censure," but also involves a formal vote by the entire House. Ten House Members have been "reprimanded" for a range of misconduct, including failure to disclose personal interests in official matters; misrepresentations to investigating committees; failure to report campaign contributions; conversion of campaign contributions to personal use; ghost voting and payroll improprieties; the misuse of one's political influence in administrative matters to help a personal associate; providing inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable information to the investigating committee; for a breach of decorum in a joint session; and the misuse of official resources by compelling congressional staff to work on political campaigns.

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31382.html

[FreepFryer]

4. Only 5 removals in House history (3 in 1861).

The five prior expulsions were for taking up arms agains the US in 1861 (3), for a bribery conviction in 1996 (1) and a multiple corruption conviction in 2002 (1).

Signing onto the lawsuit doesn't quite meet the same bar, unless they are convicted as part of their misrepresentation or abuse of the process.

[exboyfil]

5. Yes

We need to stop this stupid crap.

I would think a debate on the floor regarding censoring the support of some aspects of the lawsuit would be in order. In particular the reliance on that ridiculous statistical analysis and the focus on disenfranchising voters especially minority voters. By putting your name on the lawsuit, you are then responsible for the content of the lawsuit.

[llashram]

8. yeah well there should

be 126 more. This going along to get along is tiresome and boring. We need to show some teeth in our victory. Sitting back resting on our laurels just ain't going to make.

[marble falls]

7. Why are we chewing over a dumb thing like this? Look at where wishful thinking's gotten the GOP.

[StarfishSaver]

6. Yes, it does. It just doesn't apply to the 126 Members who signed the amicus brief

Cutting and pasting my OP so that no one reading yours is fooled into thinking it is legally sound:

The call for Speaker Pelosi to refuse to seat the 126 Members who signed the Supreme Court amicus brief - triggered by a tweet from Rep. Bill Pascrell - sounds good, but it's a non-starter. Neither the Speaker nor the House have the Constitutional or statutory authority to take such an action.

First, a Member can be denied their seat ONLY if he or she fails to meet the Constitutional qualifications (age, citizenship, residency, etc.) or if the result of their election is contested or uncertified. Neither of those conditions apply to any of those Members and, therefore, they are entitled to be sworn in.

Second, the argument being used here and elsewhere that the 14th Amendment prohibits anyone who engaged in "rebellion or insurrection" from serving in Congress does not apply. That clause was intended to apply to former Confederates who participated in a war intended to overthrow the government and is inoperable here. Signing an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to settle a legal dispute is not an act of war, violence, sedition, insurrection or rebellion. It is, in fact, how we expect people to address their objections - they had every right to petition the Court, notwithstanding the outrageousness of their position. The fact that their request was an outrageous one does not turn their use of the judicial process into a federal crime. No court would rule otherwise and no lawyer with even rudimentary knowledge of the Constitution or statute would argue that they should.

Note that several members of the Congressional Black Caucus sought to have the Florida Electoral College results thrown out in 2001. Other than the fact that they sought to do this in a joint session of Congress instead of in court, that was no different than this situation - their attempts to use a legal process to achieve their goal was not seditious and certainly didn't render them in violation of the Constitution or subject to being denied their Congressional seats.

Third, even if these 126 Members' actions could be deemed to be a criminal rebellion, insurrection or sedition within the meaning of the Constitution or statute, it is not within the power of the Speaker or the House to unilaterally make that determination.

Some people have cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment as justification for their call to exclude these Members, yet seem to have skipped over Section 1 of that same amendment, which guarantees due process and equal protection and, thus prohibits the House from denying them their seats based on an extra-judicial allegation that they violated the Constitution.

In order for the House to invoke this clause of the Constitution against a Member, a court would first have to have convicted that Member of the specific crime on which the refusal to seat is based.

Moreover, it is somewhat ironic to see Democrats insist that Members who argued that voters should have their vote disregarded and their chosen candidate denied the office they selected him for should be punished by having the votes of THEIR voters disregarded and their chosen candidate denied the office they selected them for.

Unfortunately, social media (including DU) is being flooded with people who don't know the law but are demanding that the Speaker and the House do what they are not legally empowered to do. And, of course, many of those demands are couched in criticisms and accusations that speaker Pelosi and the Democrats are weak, cowards, ineffective, etc. if they do not do it. And since they will not do it because they cannot do it, we will continue to be inundated with unfair and baseless attacks on Democratic leadership.

Instead of focusing on trying to force an action that has no basis in law, I urge people to consider what type of action they can advocate that can actually be taken to punish these irresponsible Members and deter others considering similar action in the future from following their lead.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214704126

[2naSalit]

9. Any motions to refuse to seat or unseat them requires...

At the very least, an investigation. There may be some kind of sanctions that can be used against them but it may be that actual legal case need to be brought for the process of removal can begin.