I know that presidential pardons can’t cover state charges. But if the murders took place on federal property in DC, would Trump be able to pardon them? Or would DC law apply?
I"m not even sure that they know that’s what they’re supposed to do. I don’t think they have the faintest clue what governing is all about, or how to go about it.
It started out as a troll but I am pretty sure if they do retake the house they will almost certainly try to make it happen. They are nothing but a Cult of Personality now.
Well, they’re also now a domestic terroristic organization. That’s really the only way to describe an outfit that supports the treason of January 6, 2021.
This would be true even if Rep. McCarthy is speaker. It has been true for all modern presidencies (1940s-) where the President’s party is minority in the house.
~Max
I thought Trump could only murder with impunity when on 5th Avenue. Perhaps I misunderstood…
I don’t think Congresspeople get frisked, but they do have to go through a metal detector.
The assassinate-those-in-line-ahead thing happened a few years back in Nepal. In that case, it was someone in the Royal Family who murdered the king and a number of relatives. But that made him king and thus couldn’t be prosecuted. I don’t recall how they resolved the issue, but they certainly didn’t want a murderer as monarch.
The royal massacre took place in Nepal in 2001; the king, Birendra, and eight other members of the royal family were killed by his son, Dipendra, who then shot himself. Dipendra was declared king, but he was comatose and ultimately died three days later, which resolved the issue. His uncle, Gyanendra (Birendra’s brother) became king and reigned until 2008, when Nepal abolished its monarchy and became a federal republic.
But many Congresspeople have reportedly just walked around it.
If Trump (or anyone not a congress person) was made speaker, would they get a vote?
If the President is in the building, I’m sure the Secret Service will insist they go through it.
The role of the speaker is to build consensus on legislation sufficient to get it passed (where we understand that “consensus” means “just a tad over 50%”).
Trump couldn’t even choose his own staff in such a way that they were capable of arriving at a consensus on anything, and his average product was to encourage them into a further breakdown of agreement with one another.
I wouldn’t put it past most of the Freedom Caucus to be so short-sighted to actually give the idea a go but, for the rest of the Republicans in the House, I think they understand that Trump is just good for fundraising. As Speaker of the House, he would be less useful than he even had been as President. At least, there, no one really expected him to do anything but watch TV. The Speaker actually needs to be active and invested.
Yes, apparently they just have to pay a fine. The issues around forcing a Member of Congress to comply with administrative and security rules are a bit murky, but it’s probably unconstitutional to prevent a Member from taking the floor for refusing to go through a metal detector.
I’m sure the Secret Service would want them to go through it, but I don’t think they actually have the authority to insist on it - Members of Congress are elected Consititutional officers of the Legislative Branch, and Executive Branch functionaries don’t have legal authority over them (beyond ordinary law enforcement). In a State of the Union address, the President is invited by Congress to address a Joint Session, in the Capitol. In practice, the Secret Service and Capitol Police cooperate closely in securing the building for the address, but the Secret Service can’t prevent a Member of Congress from attending a Joint Session.
In the event, I think the only thing the Secret Service could do would be to inform the President of the breach of security protocols and give a strongly worded recommendation, but then it would be up to the President to enter the chamber to give the address or not.
Make 'em walk outside 200 yards and go through another door. And then have Cap Cops frisk them and they can walk in.
Or, if they want to bypass the metal detectors, have an armed Secret Service member stand directly behind them at all times, ready to neutralize the threat.
And if they refuse to be frisked? Again, there are serious Constitutional issues with preventing a Member of Congress from attending a session. There’s possibly an argument that each house of Congress could itself set up such rules for their members, but that’s still deeply problematic. There’s no way the Secret Service could impose such a requirement on them.
So, you want armed agents of the Executive Branch explicitly targeting elected officials of the Legislative Branch and standing by ready to kill them during a session of Congress? Seriously? You don’t see any issues with that?
No problem with that at all, if they bypass security measures designed to prevent people from bringing handguns with them onto the floor of Congress. If they do this, then they are indicating that they will not follow laws, and should be considered to be armed and potentially very dangerous, and in need of very close watching.
The secret service is close to the president at all times, ready to kill anyone who presents an active threat.
What law are they failing to follow?
That’s a leap. But even then, “very close watching” is just a bit different from
And the euphemism is cute, but just to be clear, you want armed agents of the President standing behind Members of Congress ready to kill them. I’m frankly at a loss for words trying to explain how there might be some issues with that.
Yes, that’s their job. They don’t generally stand directly behind elected officials ready to kill them, which is what you’re suggesting.
If Donald Trump had announced that Secret Service agents would stand directly behind any Members of Congress who didn’t abide by his preferred security screening procedures in order to kill them if they presented a threat, would you contend that was a reasonable precaution?
Is it legal to bring a gun into the Capitol unless you are a member of the security services that are explicitly allowed to do so?
The Supreme Court has allowed all sorts of exceptions on our constitutional rights. Indeed, can you think of a single unrestricted constitutional right?
If they are armed in an area where that is explicitly not allowed, have bypassed security measures to bring their weapons inside, and have made threatening comments in the past…
Then yes.
ISTM the way to stop guns from being brought to the floor of the House or Senate is for either/both of them formulate that rule. The constitution says they can make their own rules. I am willing to bet they’d get away with that and, despite how gun crazy this country is, I am willing to bet they would protect themselves in this manner given a little provocation.