General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"... a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified ...."
Link to tweet
I_UndergroundPanther
(12,480 posts)Doritos, fritos and cheetos,some beer and more
AmBlue
(3,116 posts)This guy is killin' it. Have donated to Democracy Docket to support his efforts several times.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)wont work without one. Although might could remove them later.
Personally, think we need to prepare to beat these deplorables at the polls, and stop trying to find some questionable method of disqualifying them.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)Nancy Pelosi will still have the gavel and should refuse to seat any that managed to get re-elected.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Don't like GOPers either, but one can't talk about preserving Democracy and refuse to seat duly elected representatives. Sorry.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)From Article 1, Section 5:
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members,
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I get despising them, but this is a Democracy.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)the Capitol, yeah disqualify him. But just because he called the Prez, ain't enough in a true Democracy.
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)My point is that the determinations will be intra rather than inter-branch.
This has been a great conversation. I have an extra heart to give out. It's yours, now!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)quakerboy
(13,921 posts)I assume that you agree that adjudicating whether a specific legal crime or offense or situation has occured is a major part of their purview?
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)The House has that ability in this situation, and the Constitutional authority to set whatever guidelines they feel like they can enforce. Would a court case help to add credibility? Absolutely. I hope many are tried.
There is no Constitutional means for the Judiciary to intervene in House of Representative operations.
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)Noone said that the judiciary would remove house members. The post you responded to literally indicated that convictions would give the legislature the basis for removing them.
As to the rest.. think about the implications. If the house doesn't need any legal basis to decide that a member participated in an insurrection and wont be allowed to be seated.. What happens the next time the R's take over?
Gore1FL
(21,151 posts)Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)If so, i cede your argument on the basis that you are using technical terminology and I am using descriptive. If not.. well, i dont know enough about the technical terminology to continue on that basis.
However, I will ask this. Whatever the technical wording is, if the precedent is set of excluding elected persons without anything definitively supportive to meet the grounds of that exclusion or expulsion, which group do you think will make most free use of that newly realized power when they control the body?
duhneece
(4,117 posts)Im watching closely. May be worth a visit with an attorney if Couy files to run in March.
Following with baited breath.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Response to Cha (Reply #5)
BadgerMom This message was self-deleted by its author.
Skittles
(153,193 posts)THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN AMERICA
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)If they claim they believed the lies, that's even more pathetic than joining #FailedCoupGuy's tragic plotting. Either way, stupid or ignorant, there's no excuse for criminally trying to overthrow democracy.
Link to tweet
Uncle Joe
(58,417 posts)because I'm getting sleepy but I will read them more in depth tomorrow.
https://www.justsecurity.org/74739/their-fourteenth-amendment-section-3-and-ours/
https://www.justsecurity.org/32120/time-terms-secret-law-part/
Thanks for the thread L. Coyote and have a good night.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)RainCaster
(10,914 posts)Bastids in the House or Senate?
SergeStorms
(19,204 posts)And you know how these vermin stick together, even with the most damning evidence against the others.
Right, wrong, guilt, innocence......these words mean nothing to the sitting GQP Representatives.
aggiesal
(8,923 posts)The word "But" at the start of the sentence is trying to "not" use the penalties mentioned with 2/3rds vote in each House.
hydrolastic
(488 posts)I mean we can get rid of these people but only if we can get...... (some unobtainable item)
Sucha NastyWoman
(2,754 posts)Theres one named Middleton in Texas (not in my Congressional district)
L. Coyote
(51,129 posts)Cha
(297,655 posts)Deminpenn
(15,290 posts)nt
quakerboy
(13,921 posts)Seems to me that we are unlikely to apply it at all, because even now, our elected officials are by and large too willing to just let things go and not fight.
That said.. the easiest way to apply it would be to apply to to individuals who actively participated in attacking the capital. Which would not include any current active house members (at least, not unless/until someone proves their participation in a court). But It would apply to the new crop of Trump snowflakes who are hoping to win office in the next election.
And that.. might have a chance of some bipartisanship, given the way they want to win positions is largely by displacing regular old shrub type republicans from their positions