From this article:
I despise republicans these days but even to me this sounds absurd (not least because someday democrats could be on the other side of the fence).
Feel free to comment on how you feel about it but what I am really curious about is if Pelosi (Speaker of the House) could actually do such a thing if she were of a mind to? For that question ignore if it is dumb politically…could she actually do it?
I should clarify I mean the Republican Party here. I’m not thrilled with their adherents either but “despise” is too strong a word for that.
attempting to overthrow democracy should have consequences and punishments. but I doubt Pelosi can do this, doesn’t she need 2/3 of the house to do this?
The 14th Amendment says 2/3 of the House to “remove such disability”. In other words, to override the proscription.
The 14th Amendment talks about “insurrection or rebellion against [the United States]”. I think insurrection is by definition violent. But perhaps what they are doing could be argued to fit the definition of rebellion.
It doesn’t seem to say anything about who adjudicates this. It just says “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Is there some basis for Pascrell saying that Pelosi has authority to decide?
I dunno about this. But the Texas GOP party suggested leaving the Union, and some have advocated violence.
If any of these clowns do either, then yes, refuse to seat them.
I like the idea. In my opinion, someone who is actively and publicly refusing to support the constitution of the United States has no business holding any office stipulated by that constitution. That goes for representatives, senators, and president.
Members of Congress? If that’s really the case, then Pascrell’s suggestion is perhaps not so outlandish. But I’m skeptical that they’ve gone that far.
Was it not also absurd that those Republicans joined that suit? I think it would be just as absurd if Democratic congresspeople joined a suit that tried to undermine democracy.
I’m not saying it should be absurdity for absurdity, but this absurdity is only gong one way at the moment. There should be some consequences. I don’t know what they are at the moment.
I think the issue is who gets to decide? How is it decided? Just at the Speaker’s whim?
If the Speaker of the House can just say, “Sorry, you’re not in the club,” is that the end of it?
Especially considering, these days, if the tides turn and republicans control the House there is every reason to think they would totally go there and do that if they could.
OK, you’re looking at the technical issues. I’m talking about the fairness issues. I don’t know the technical details and am not that interested in them.
I am not sure. Trump has hinted at it, and certainly winked at it- so I wouldn’t be surprised if some GOP congresscrittter has done so.
There certainly have been calls to violence, but many anonymous and I cant find any directly linked to any GOP rep. yet.
I don’t think the Democrats are going to file a bunch of suits to overturn democracy. If they do I will oppose them.
You mean there might be payback? Oh gosh. Like not confirming a Supreme Court justice? That sort of thing? Oh, that already happened.
The only good thing in dealing with Nazis is their tactics become predictable. You know they’re going to invade Poland, so you can just worry about how and when, instead of clutching your pearls lest you might offend them. That no longer matters.
Fair enough but the technical issues matter. We have seen the Trump administration break-down norms left-and-right when it comes to governing. Those norms were important but they were not codified in law so Trump took the position that if the law doesn’t say he can’t do something then he can.
Now we are in a position to carefully parse what is and is not legally possible because the laws weren’t written with insane specificity and just kinda assumed people would be rational about it all. But nope.
But if it is not your bag that’s cool. Indeed, you are in the majority on that count.
Are you suggesting that Democrats should act with restraint because that is likely to result in Republicans feeling an ethical duty to act with similar restraint in the future? I don’t think you have been paying attention.
I’m not worried about offending them.
I am worried about knocking down norms that let the government run.
Republicans have been doing so with abandon these past four years. They seem to forget what they let Trump do then the next democratic president could do. The reverse is true too.
If Dems join the madness and just decide to not seat congress-people then republicans can do the same if they get control. I don’t know that we want to go there.
I hear you on that.
But should Dems engage in a race to the bottom to try to be shitty before republicans?
I really don’t know…
I don’t see how Pelosi would have any such constitutional power. If these lawmakers won their elections, they won their elections.
I don’t think that’s really a consideration any more. The only consideration is that we need to recognize that the current incarnation of the Republican Party is an existential threat to this nation, and we need to win, by all (legal) means necessary, and keep winning. The principal consideration here should be realpolitik. On that basis, what I’d really like to hear is what Pascrell thinks this can achieve. The Republican Party are already preparing to stop the government from functioning for the next 4 years. I don’t see how this stops them. If there were any prospect of barring traitorous senators, maybe that gets more interesting. But I think that’s pie in the sky.
I totally agree.
But as republicans have been wont to do recently they like finding loopholes because someone didn’t think they had to write a law covering some absurd thing.
So sure, the person is the congresscritter from West Bumblefuck but the Speaker won’t let you in the building. Why? Because she can.
This is what republicans have brought us to.