Really? Which armed revolt have you spotted?
None? Ah.
They placated the Tea Partiers so they can get on with the business of ignoring everything else the Tea Partiers wanted.
OK, then where, specifically, does the Constitution require that the oath of office be taken on the floor of the House?
The major differences are - Obama bothered to show up to take his oath. The reason that Obama’s original oath of office was flawed was the fault of the person administering the oath, not the person taking the oath. Also, to the best of my knowledge, Obama passed no legislation until the cautionary ‘do-over’ was complete. I stand ready to be corrected on this last point if I am wrong.
On the other hand, Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick were elsewhere. Whether the constitution insists on their presence in the house to take the oath of office or not, it is clear that the expectation was that the oath be taken with all the others members. They had better things to do with their time, apparently. Any question over the validity of their oath of office is entirely their fault. Then, rather than arrange for someone to investigate whether or not their oath of office was valid, they voted on legislation while that oath of office was in question, which as I understand it is totally against the constitution.
While I admit that I am a supporter of Obama and someone who opposes the Republicans, I do not see these two situations as being equal. I am also a Canadian, so my opinion does not count for much.
Could someone please comment on the propriety or impropriety of the fund-raiser that Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick were attending? I am confused about whether or not this fund-raiser should have been permitted at all under US law.
Maybe it gave them a goal? Sort of like “Ohhhh, THIS is what we’re here for. Let’s put political agendas aside.”
Yeah, I probably should have stopped at that third martini…
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
I see no issue with the Bill of Rights and the Constitution being read at the opening of every new congress, and I really do not understand the uproar against doing so.
It doesn’t (but you knew that already).
[ol]
[li]It was a pointless exercise.[/li][li]They did not actually read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They left stuff out.[/li][li]They were not consistent in their editing. They left out items about slavery and the three-fifths compromise (as it is superseded by amendment), but left in articles about taxes that are also superseded by amendment.[/li][li]It was a pointless exercise (so nice, I said it twice.)[/li][/ol]
I’m no fan of the GOP, but I don’t see it as a bad thing either. After all they’re taking an oath to defend it, and it’s good that they occasionally be reminded of what’s in it. They just went about it in a rather dumbass manner, having each member of congress read a small part of it. I say in the future just pick two people from each party for the reading. Yeah, it’ll probably still take awhile to get through the whole thing, but you won’t waste time announcing each member of congress as they walk up to read a few words.
Yes. So where, then, is the hypocrisy?
2 USC 25 states that “the oath of office shall be administered by… the Speaker to all the Members and Delegates present.”
So while not a constitutional requirement, the law indicates that one must be present during the administration of the oath. I’m not sure how you gather that it was “unlikely in the extreme” that the first oath – the one taken by television – was acceptable. The law says you have to be present, and the two now-congressmen were not.
ETA: Furthermore, the House rules state that a resolution must be passed in order to authorize the reading of the oath “at some location other than the House.” By House, I would assume they mean the floor of the House, not an office building within the general House complex in the Southeastern quadrant of DC.
First thing that came to my mind when I heard of this stunt worthy of some Eastern European “democracy” is Andy Kaufman reading Great Gatsby.
On a second thought, Great Gatsby is more interesting read.
I think, to be more historically accurate, this should say some thing like “Didn’t the Liberals pass the 13th amendment abolishing slavery over the objections of many Conservatives?”
Agreed. If they make this an annual thing, perhaps they can 1. clarify the pronunciation of pro tempore and 2. let the Congressmen stop at the end of an article. At least have them tap out at the end of a complete sentence. The stopping mid-sentence was annoying.
Rather like reading Ulysses on Bloomsday.
But with less drinking.
Political Theater. Out of the news cycle next week.
They did it because they said they were going to do it, and they said they were going to do it because they and the Tea Party people are fond of saying the government is exceeding its Constitutional authority. So it was a “reminder.” They also said that they will cite the Constitutional underpinnings of each bill they propose.
Why just the Bill of Rights? Amendments 11-27 don’t count?
It’s called “pandering.” Google it.