How can the 106 Republicans be sworn in when they can't swear to defend the Constitution?

[onecaliberal]

Serious question.

[bullimiami]

1. They cannot. Serious answer. It would be a lie.

[Ferrets are Cool]

2. They lie in their sleep, this will be just one more.

[Biophilic]

3. This.

It is a serious question and deserves a serious answer but I'm not sure from whom. Perhaps us. Perhaps their supposed peers in congress. I'm not sure, but someone needs to ask them what they thought they were doing attempting to damage the Constitution. At very least.

[moondust]

4. 126

Good question. Does their Trump Confederacy have a Constitution they'd like to pledge allegiance to instead? Somewhere in Russia?

[Ferryboat]

5. If any hold a license to practice law

Wouldn't it be perjury to swear an oath? Certainly its hypocrisy.

[onecaliberal]

7. Good point. Hadn't thought of that.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Perjury refers to sworn testimony given in a court proceeding

It is completely inoperable here.

[William769]

6. Because they live by a double standard.

[PufPuf23]

8. The 106 GOP sedition representives cannot be sworn in without committing

perjury.

If any lie, they should be prosecuted for perjury and sedition.

Pelosi should inform the States with the felon tentive reps to schedule special epections to fill the seats.

The situation puts on a platter a first and major step of reconciliation and repair of our institutions of governance.

Let our leaders be brave and firm.

[onecaliberal]

9. I agree. It cannot stand.

[StarfishSaver]

19. "Perjury"

FYI, the Speaker has no authority to 'inform" a state to conduct special elections.

And there is no such thing as a "felon tentive rep" ...

But other than that, your post makes sense.

Well, actually, it doesn't ...

[c-rational]

10. The PA AG on Chris Cuomo said they may have serious legal issues. They are suppose to uphold

and defend the Constitution and they have not. Also, this AG is considering sanctions against lawyers who aided and abetted this frivolous lawsuit.

[onecaliberal]

11. There has to be a price to pay.

[Sogo]

13. Totally agree.

The last thing we want to do is reinforce this behavior by having no consequences!

[StarfishSaver]

12. Because the oath is a promise of what they're going to do in the future

We have no way of reading anyone's minds so we do not determine in advance that they're going to violate their oath of office. And we don't deny people a place in Congress because we suspect they might not uphold the Constitution in the future based on past behavior, especially when they have not been charged and convicted of any wrongdoing.

We need to be careful about the kinds of arguments being made in this thread. Not only don't they make sense, they could easily be used against any member with whom someone disagrees.

[onecaliberal]

14. Republicans signed a lawsuit that sought to invalidate the votes of 4 states. They signed on.

They're actively working from the inside to destroy democracy.

[StarfishSaver]

15. They didn't "sign a lawsuit"

They signed an amicus brief. That's not a crime and it's not sedition, insurrection or rebellion.

[onecaliberal]

16. They fully support the suit. They want to impose their will on America, voters be damned.

On edit: This sums it up for me.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[StarfishSaver]

17. Kind of like the way you want to impose YOUR will on voters who chose their Representatives

Not sure why you posted this completely irrelevant tweet from Professor Tribe, which in no way supports your argument. But, whatever.

Numerous lawyers have explained to you why your interpretation of the law is completely erroneous, yet you continue to insist otherwise, notwithstanding your lack of expertise in the area.

Fortunately, your comepletely erroneous view of the law doesn't hold any water with people who actually know the law and are responsible for making, interpreting and enforcing it.

But, if course, you are free to continue yelling into the wind. But I have better things to do than to argue the law with someone who doesn't understand it and is completely resistant to learning anything about it.

Have a nice day.

[onecaliberal]

28. Kinda how I want THE VOTERS will imposed. You're assuming facts not in evidence.

Peace.

[StarfishSaver]

29. The VOTERS' will in those 126 was to have those Members represent them

You're demanding that Members from other states and districts decide that these voters' chosen representatives should not be seated for reasons unrelated to their qualifications, which the Constitution does not allow.

[onecaliberal]

30. The states in question were won by Biden, so no

Your argument doesn’t make sense. I’m not going to agree with you on this. Have a great rest of your day.

[StarfishSaver]

31. You know presidential and congressional elections are two different things, right?

A majority of voters in those states voted for Biden. But a majority of voters in those Members districts voted for them.

The fact that their state went for Biden in the presidential race does not override voters' selections of Republican representativs in individual districts.

The Speaker of the House has no more power to undo the choices of the voters in those districts than the Texas Secretary of State has to undo the votes of the voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

[onenote]

33. 85 of the members of Congress supporting Texas' lawsuit were from states won by Biden

And i suspect that 100% of them represent districts whose voters supported Trump over Biden

[LanternWaste]

18. Seems you want a lawsuit filed to overturn their election.

I find that amusingly ironic.

[StarfishSaver]

21. Ain't it, though?

Not even calling for a lawsuit. Just demanding the Speaker unilaterally do it herself.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

22. Disagree. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice,

shame on me.

What people do, what I see them do, is what I base my relationships with them on. No way am I ever going to trust anyone who I see blatantly supporting illegitimately disenfranchising 80,000,000 voters for the sole purpose of installing their beloved lunatic candidate as supreme dictator of the United States, and ending democracy in my country in the process

Far as I'm concerned, they are false, seditious, and dangerous persons who don't have a shred of democratic integrity.

What they have done is unconscionable, and because of this they have no place in democratic government. Keeping weasels in the henhouse right after they've already attempted to kill your chickens can only result in a coop full of dead chickens in the near future.

They should not be seated, if not seating them is a possibility. Shame on them.

[StarfishSaver]

24. You can disagree all you want. The law is the law and you're wrong

I can "disagree" with the law of gravity to my heart's content, but that's not going to keep a rock from falling to the ground when I drop it from a balcony.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

25. Wrong about what, exactly?

[StarfishSaver]

26. Read my post and then read your response disagreeing with it

That should answer your question.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

27. Meh. You are avoiding answering my question,

What specifically, is "wrong" about my post?

[onenote]

34. "if not seating them is a possibility"

It's not a possibility under the Constitution, so folks should move on from this argument.

[Paladin]

20. Who expects honesty or a lack of hypocrisy from Republicans, any more?

Anybody?

[treestar]

32. They can hide behind legal technicality

Which they are always against in 4th Amendment cases and the like. They were only subscribing to the legal theory behind the TX lawsuit (no matter that is was a ridiculous one).