Whack-a-mole & Smapti, this is an example what I was alluding to.
Nazis committed war crimes in Poland. Does that mean the Allies are free to commit war crimes against the Nazis?
It’s not about “offending” the other side. It’s about preserving democratic norms. If their voters elected them, they get to sit in Congress, no matter how stupid their political views are. Refusing to sit them because of their political views is just the flip side of the coin to opposing the valid election of your opponent.
FWIW, the votemaster things it might be appropriate to censure the ring leader:
See ElectoralVote for the full quote. It is in the answer to the first two questions.
And Trump voters, like Velocity.
Velocity has stated he didn’t vote in the past election. He has consistently stated that he votes third party.
This Is a interesting editorial that speaks to this subject-
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.
I disagree. One hallmark of modern Repubs: double-standards are OK if they help the party. They aren’t forgetting, they’re just trying to win today and if it has consequences figure it out tomorrow, ad infinitum.
It means that West Germany was under no obligation to let Nazis sit in parliament.
My apologies. I think I got him confused with UltraVires. Very sorry, Velocity!
True. In a reversed situation they would find it absolutely proper to do unto others as they would not have be done unto them and have no blush in their face as they defend that it is right for them to do it and it was wrong for the Democrats to do so. See also: Merrick Garland / Amy Coney Barrett
But still, more likely is a censure of the ringleaders.
I do agree with this. They went two bridges too far. Some sort of censure should be given but I doubt that it will be taken very far because moderate Dems want to calm the waters, not increase the intensity of the storm.
Signing on to a legal brief, seeking to use the courts to change governmental action, strikes me as the opposite of an ‘insurrection’. It’s actually the epitome of the rule of law: use the law to challenge a government action, rather than triggering uprisings to overturn the government. Just my opinion, but I don’t think this clause could be used to kick elected officials out of Congress.
If the author is so concenred about following the Constitution, should know that the Constitution defines “traitor” very precisely:
Again, signing on to a legal brief, alleging a breach of the Constitution, and asking the Supreme Court to review the alleged constitutional breach, is not “levying war” against the United States, nor is it “adhering to their Enemies.”
On the OP: Its tit for tat. The Reoublican’s put forth some horribly unconstitutional scheme to overturn Democracy that will never actually go anywhere and the Democrats do that same. The difference is that the Republican scheme had a substantial portion of the party lining up behind it while this one has one or possibly a few congressmen behind it and will be quashed by Pelosi and the party leadership before seeing the light of day. I’m in favor of Pacrell bringing it out as a political stunt to highlight how serious the Republican congressmen’s actions were, but I’m glad its unlikely to actually become a serious consideration.
The problem is that the Democrats can’t do this with impunity the way the Republican’s can. The majority of the Democratic base actually wants to live in a democracy with the rule of law. If the Democrats start pulling the sort of shit that the Republicans do, then as far as I am concerned we really would be in a situation where “both sides are just as bad” and people like me who is a staunch Yellow dog Democrat start thinking about third party options.
Democracy isn’t dead yet, we won in 2018 and 2020, the majority of the Country supports us we can win this the right way. I don’t think we are yet at the point where we have to burn down democracy to save it.
About a dozen of lawmakers who signed on to the lawsuit are from the states that lawsuit claims are not reporting legitimate election results.
I have no problem with not seating a member of congress who claims his or her own election is illegitimate. If they want to join congress, they can renounce that position.
Amen to that. They need to set a good example here. (oh, who am I kidding…)
I don’t know if we’ll see anything at the federal level, but there’s at least some action at the state level.
Michigan Republican legislative leaders pulled a GOP lawmaker from his committee assignments Monday after the lawmaker hinted he was part of a group that sought to disrupt or otherwise undermine the Electoral College vote slated to happen at the Capitol this afternoon.
Good on the MI GOP.
If you read the Follow along thread, you will see it is not a real punishment.
Basically he wont be on those committees for about a week or so.
The Republican party is not a terrorist organization…
Not quite yet.
But it does contain several elected members who do seem quite keen to move the party along that pathway.
There is no guarantee he will ever be back on those committees.
The leadership removed him from the committees in the current house, which just sits for one week more.
The new House is seated in early January, at which point the new House elects the committee members. Will he be re-elected to a committee? Wait and see, I guess.
True, you are right. They might not put him back on, and they shouldn’t. But the current removal, as it stands, only removes him for a very short time.
Let us hope they dont put him back.