General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Economic Treason: The definition of "treason" and could Republicans be guilty of this crime (Part 2) [View all]onenote
(42,714 posts)And it wouldn't look that way to any court in this country.
Legislators get to vote. They get to discuss and coordinate their votes. Look back at past battles on the debt ceiling. The last vote to raise the debt ceiling passed the House by a 285-144 margin. The 144 votes against this particular bill to raise the debt ceiling included 111 Democrats. Those Democrats weren't opposed to raising the debt ceiling, they were opposed to the specific terms under which the debt ceiling was being increased. And it was every bit their right to vote the way they did, even if it had meant that the debt ceiling increase was voted down in that incarnation.
What the repubs doing is irresponsible, unreasonable, and every other negative thing you can think of, except for one: its not unlawful. There is no evidence that the repubs would vote to shutter the government or prevent a debt ceiling increase if the terms on which it was done met their demands. Indeed, they all voted to keep the government funded, but on terms that were not acceptable to the administration and to the Senate. The Administration and the Senate were right to say "no way" to the repubs proposals, but that doesn't make it illegal for the repubs to make their demands. Recall 17 years ago when the government last had a major shutdown. That shutdown occurred in two stages, and the first stage occurred after Bill Clinton (correctly in my view) vetoed the continuing resolution that had been sent to him by Congress as well as a debt ceiling bill. One could hardly accuse either those in Congress who had voted to keep the government funded (but on terms unacceptable to the President and enough members of Congress to sustain his veto) or the President and those who would sustain his vetoes of having committed some act of treason or an act of malfeasance or some other action that would support legal action. It just doesn't work that way. These fights are political. They're ugly. But they're not the basis for any legal action.