Do not seat them...

[Soph0571]

Link to tweet

In 1861 Congress expelled 11 Senators & 3 Reps for failing to recognize Lincoln’s win

Can we summon the courage that our forefathers had? 140 House Republicans refuse to acknowledge Biden’s win (and thus their own, too). Do not seat them

Exactly this. By their own 'logic', if the election is fraudulent there is absolutely no guarantee that they were duly elected - and therefore there is no reason to seat them... and of course they are enablers of the Terrorist in Chief - stand back and stand by white supremacist Nazis.

The BIG Protest Rally in Washington, D.C., will take place at 11.00 A.M. on January 6th. Locational details to follow. StopTheSteal!

He is inciting violence on the streets of the Capitol cause you know the cray cray that will show up look exactly like this:



All the while the very male, pale and stale fascist contingent in Congress seek to destroy democracy for political ends. Seditious traitors should not be seated. They do not believe that the elections were free and fair? Well then, let them be hoist by their own petard.

[leftieNanner]

1. I think the problem is one of timing

They will be sworn in to office on the 3rd. The counting of the Electoral College votes happens on the 6th, so they will already be seated. Let's hope Speaker Pelosi does something to give them some consequences for their behavior. She may not have a full count and a list of names of the traitors on the 3rd.

[onenote]

24. What do you think Pelosi could do to them?

[leftieNanner]

27. I don't know

Possibly censure them? I am not aware of House rules, but I'm sure Nancy is!

[StarfishSaver]

29. They are taking actions authorized by the Constitution, statutes and House rules

On what grounds would the House censure them if they are doing what the law allows them to do?

Democrats took this action in 2005 and tried to do it in 2001 and 2017. Should they have been censured?

[leftieNanner]

30. Good Point

I guess if they push beyond the Constitutional limits, then maybe some consequences.

I'm just so effing tired of all this crap. Can't wait until January 20th!

Happy New Year StarfishSaver!

[wnylib]

34. But Democrats were not inciting

or fomenting violence then, were they? I get your point about the constitutional right to express disagreement and to protest. But where is the constitutional right to use violence and intimidation in the process?

Edited to remove question that was answered in a later post.

[StarfishSaver]

40. I think you're missing my point

Regardless what some Republicans are saying and doing, the Republican Senators and House Members - none of whom have incited or fomented violence or urged a forceful overthrow of a lawful government - are objecting to the Electoral College votes through procedures set forth in the Constitution, statutes and rules providing for them to do so.

The Constitution limits the power of Congress to refuse to seat members to very specific circumstances, mostly relating to their qualifications, none of which apply here. The House Speaker has no right to refuse to seat members for reasons that don't fall within the very specific and limited areas set forth in the Constitution, regardless how reprehensible their behavior may be or how much she disagrees with them.

[wnylib]

43. I get your point and you made it even

clearer in your response. I agree with you and tge constitution that, as unpleasant as it is to us, the constitutional rights of those House members and of Senator Hawley must be protected.

But I am concerned that their position supports a president who IS using the January 6 vote tallying date and event to promote street demonstrations by gangs who are known for their violence.

So let's see what, if any, response those House members and Senators have if the demonstrations turn violent.

[StarfishSaver]

2. This is not accurate. They were not denied their seats for refusing to recognize Lincoln's win

They were denied their seats for supporting secession. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/congress-expelled-lincoln-election/

There are very limited situations in which Member scan be denied their seats. Refusing to vote to certify an Electoral College vote is not one of them.

[SCantiGOP]

3. and it would basically be the end of American democracy

The original tweet is idiotic.

[StarfishSaver]

6. As are most of the over-the-top arguments in this vein

Funny that the same people making these arguments were perfectly happy about and supportive of Democrats doing the same thing in response to Bush's and Trump's election.

[mr_lebowski]

13. Remind me how many intelligence agencies have chimed in to say that Democrats cheated in this

election?

Which RNC documents were stolen and distributed publicly via Wikileaks, who were coordinating with one of Hillary's close operatives (Stone in the case of Trump) in the months leading up to the election, while Hillary chanted "wikileaks" over and over on the campaign trail?

Remind me when Chelsea Clinton met with Russian operatives who claimed to have dirt on Trump, in furtherance of their governments goal to get Hillary elected?

Granted this was not all known at that time, but numerous agencies had already said Russia was helping Trump, and we knew about the Wikileaks theft at that time.

IOW, there was AMPLE reason to be very suspicious.

Entirely differently from now.

Also ... no Democratic Senators backed the protests in the House, like Hawley is planning to do.

[StarfishSaver]

15. That's not the point

If objecting to the Electoral College vote is grounds for refusing to seat a Member, that should also apply to Democrats who so object. We can't have it both ways.

Of course, there are no Constitutional or legal grounds for denying a Member their seat for voting to reject the Electoral College vote, something they have a right to do for whatever reason they choose.

And in 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer backed the House protest.

[mr_lebowski]

16. Okay, well all I'm saying is that our side was on MUCH stronger ground when we did what we did

So I don't think we're being hypocritical to call these assholes out.

Agree on the seating part, as I've said elsewhere on this thread

[StarfishSaver]

18. We can and should certainly call them out. They are hypocritical, unpatriotic, demagogic assholes

But, as we both agree, they have every right to do what they're doing under the Constitution and statutes and can't be denied their seats.

[mr_lebowski]

20. I love a consensus :) nt

[StarfishSaver]

21. Common ground is higher ground ...

[maxrandb]

32. In 3 of the last 6 Presidential elections, Democrats have been denied the Presidency

despite winning the Popular Vote.

In fact, since 2000 Retrumplicans have won the popular vote ONCE in 2004.

Maybe people are sick of the will of the people being ignored.

I for one would like for Democrats to fight like hell for once.

It's a move that will probably fail, but for once, I'd like for the shoe to be on the other foot.

Let them sweat and worry about if 5 Christofascists in black robes are going to "save Democracy".

Let the media breathlessly report about how "unconventional" the Democrats are behaving.

Let these fucksticks feel the anxiety of whether or not there's going to be a fucking coup.

If there are no consequences for the House Retrumplicans behavior, then I wonder what 2022 or 2024 is going to look like.

It's why I also would like to see if there are ways to expel states from the Union.

We fought a war to settle secession, but I don't think we've covered expulsion yet.

[StarfishSaver]

42. Democrats have lost the presidency despite winning the popular vote because of the Constitution

How do you propose the Democrats "fight like hell for once" to change that, absent getting 2/3 of the House and Senate to expel members or to get 2/3 of Congress and 33 states to ratify a Constitutional amendment, neither of which are going to happen in our lifetimes?

And if you think that objecting to the Electoral College vote count should be sufficient grounds for expulsion from Congress, you should be prepared to see some Democrats booted out of office if they try to object to the Electoral College thwarting the will of the people in the future. You can't have it both ways.

[former9thward]

49. 2000 and 2016. What was the third?

[LiberalLovinLug]

33. Its probably not possible, but I'd like Nancy to push through a new rule before they are seated.

That members must sign a declaration before entering.

Proclaiming that "I believe the results in my own riding that gave me the win, as well as every other riding across the country, are valid and legitimate".

Force them to either sign that, or then be exposed as the slimy hypocrites they are. And Democrats can use the fact that they did not even sign a statement saying even their own election was valid.

[wnylib]

37. In their own "riding"? Americans

do not use that British (and Canadian?) term. Most Americans don't understand it. We call them "districts."

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. ha.... sorry about that eh.

[Cosmo Blues]

14. Please

We we criticized the decision of the Supreme Court, purging of Voters, gerrymandering, closing of polling stations and voter ID laws, we acknowledge Bush was president and cough Trump was president, or if you were talking about this, my Senator at the time Barbara Boxer was making a point, not trying to overturn the election

[StarfishSaver]

17. Completely beside the point

There is nothing in the Constitution that says Members can be denied their seats for rejecting the Electoral College vote IF we think they don't have a good reason for objecting, but if we agree with their reason, they are allowed to object without consequence.

The bottom line is that Members and Senators are allowed to object to the Electoral College vote and their right to do so is not dependent on their having a reason we think is valid and, just as important, the House has no right to deny seats to any duly elected Member for any reason other than failure to meet the Constitutional requirements to be elected to the seat.

[onenote]

23. To say nothing of the fact that they will be seated before the EC votes are counted

So the only way to "unseat" them would be to expel them, which requires a 2/3 vote and that's not going to happen and Pelosi isn't going to allow her caucus to waste time on such nonsense.

[Chili]

25. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones was my representative

I was posting here in 2005, about 2 things:

1) I monitored the emergency calls to that same Election hotline that voters were able to use this election. I mapped the calls and made a graph - a horrible number of calls were in urban Cuyahoga county, where precincts that had, say, 6 machines were down to 1, etc. This was still the day of chads, and machines in those precincts had not been mandatorily cleaned and emptied of chads, and so they broke down. This is what caused most of the 10-12 hour lines of people trying to vote in Cuyahoga County.

2) I became a member of the recount, and the group I was a part of reviewed those big registration books - can't remember what they were officially called, so please forgive if I'm getting it mixed up after 15 years... but each page had a list of 15 or so votes, with the totals at the bottom: 6 votes for Kerry, 9 votes for Bush, etc. We were checking the counts, and the totals at the bottom of many of the pages were incorrect. We showed these to our coordinators, and they got excited. Can't even say if these contributed to the conviction of the election coordinator and ballot manager of Cuy Cty Bd of Elections (they served 18 months in jail), but it freaked out the DNC lawyers at the time.

I also showed the lawyers the graph I had of the elections calls of all those chad machines broken/down in urban Cuyahoga County. That freaked them out too.

[jalan48]

4. Pelosi would never do this.

[lapucelle]

5. I don't think failure to recognize Lincoln as having won the election was the reason for expulsion

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Ten_Senators_Expelled.htm

https://www.cleveland19.com/story/870206/members-of-congress-expelled-from-house/

[StarfishSaver]

8. No, it wasn't

But it's so much more fun to spread falsehoods contained in tweets without bothering to check the facts or history, isn't it?

[lapucelle]

10. Misinformation is misinformation, even if it comes from sources who some might see as allies.

[StarfishSaver]

12. Yes, it is

[mr_lebowski]

19. Totally agree ... I'm actually more annoyed by this when our side does it cause I expect better

of us than I do of them, who are clearly devoted and dedicated to a fact-free existence.

[mr_lebowski]

7. Not sure we can NOT seat them but one thing we could do ...

Every time one of them is called on to speak in teh House for the next 2 years, the chair says "The Traitor to the Constitution of the United States of America from Wisconsin has 5 minutes'.

That type of thing.

[ancianita]

36. +1000

[onenote]

9. Inaccurate and silly OP.

[rzemanfl]

11. Hey Drumpf, try this "locational detail"-

your grave, my urine. Fuck you.

[Cosmo Blues]

22. The problem with that

Is eventually Republicans will win the House and they won't seat any Democrats ever again

[dhill926]

28. yep, there is that...

[Mr.Bill]

35. By the same token,

if it were possible to do it, the republicans would have already done it awhile ago.

[SheltieLover]

26. K&R!

[bucolic_frolic]

31. yes, if their elections are so tainted they can't be trusted to support our sovereignty

Dump them out on their butts

[monkeyman1]

39. Nancy

Nancy & the house should go for it !!!!! if the shoe was on the other foot - they sure would . everybody is tired of of there bull shit ! there pissed that there president {gag} is getting kicked out to curb . maybe he'll have to take a back to his dump in Florida . i wouldn't laugh to hard . ya rite !!

[onenote]

47. Because losing a Supreme Court case would be such a good way to start

A new Congress. Congress cannot refuse to seat someone who meets the qualifications to serve. And it takes 2/3 vote to expel a member.

[onenote]

48. Because losing a Supreme Court case would be such a good way to start

A new Congress. Congress cannot refuse to seat someone who meets the qualifications to serve. And it takes 2/3 vote to expel a member.

[niyad]

41. Two unnamed reps stated that 140 reps would object. All still unnamed. There is, as far as I

know, no concrete evidence that this will occur.

[shelshaw]

44. These 140 are questioning the validity of their own vote tallies

Who are we to dispute them?

[StarfishSaver]

45. That is pretty funny, isn't it?

[Jay25]

46. He's also trying to intimidate Congress

I wonder how this is going to play out. Law enforcement seems to only attack BLM protesters, who are not usually armed.

[Blue Owl]

50. Send them to the Dunce Chamber