Including the individual in question?
I’m not familiar in the Constitution where congressmen are shielded from providing testimony. Could you site your reference please?
Closest I could find was Article I Section 6 which states: “They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
#1 It appears they are privileged from arrest, not giving testimony. And since testimony can be arranged either in North Carolina, D.C. via teleconference, or during Congressional break that isn’t a problem.
#2 As a second thought about “arrest” that means it would apply to a criminal case, since this would be an administrative civil proceeding, again the the “shield” protections would not appear to apply.
Does awarding buttons or the FBI report better define an insurrection?
I am going with the FBI and the obvious impromptu nature of the Capitol incursion.
FWIW I am no longer a staunch supporter of Cawthorn. His airport episode and relationship difficulties raise some yellow flags for me.
The article makes the claim that he “probably can’t be compelled to testify as a sitting congressman.” Read the article.
If Cawthorn was in my district I would be 50/50.
A better candidate would edge him out.
Having read through the law provided by a post by @TheDoctorIsIn, I’m going Hmmmm…
So I don’t think this is really an attempt at keeping Cawthorn off the ballot. The provision where the accused is “required to provide evidence” seemed odd. The law under which Cawthorn is being challenged also applies to other challenges beyond the J6 aspect. Such as a challenge to a candidate where challenger supplies evidence and affidavits with the accusation candidate didn’t meet residency requirements. In such a case it is logical to the accused to simply provide the evidence showing they in fact do meet residency requirement.
IMHO, the reality is this probably less about keep him off the ballot as it is more likely an attempt to get him under oath.
There is an element of qualified immunity there, mostly from tradition as far as I can tell.
This would be testifying in front of the NC electoral commission, not the Day of Infamy Comittee.
It’s an interesting case. Using old reconstruction stuff in a former confederate state. I want to know what made them pass this in 2006, if they did.
The dems held the NC legislature in 2005-06
I’ve got a lunch date later today with our local congressman. I’ll ask him about this.
insurrection? thats funny
A full reading of the article and putting that in context.
The article points out that Cawthorn probably can’t be compelled to testify before the J6 Committee because it is a House Committee and he is currently a member of the the House. It doesn’t NOT say that Cawthorn cannot be compelled to provide testimony in a non-J6 civil action which the NC Election board is as it’s not a criminal proceeding.
There is no impediment to Representative Cawthorn being compelled to provide evidence in the event of the NC challenge.
Oh yeah, the state of NC is trying an end around.
That is so cool.
No ■■■■ . As I said before, this is more about getting “The Insurrection!!” back under the spotlight before midterms than any concerns over him holding a Congress seat.
lol… now not only is a protest that devolved into a tresspassing riot “insurrection” (laughable), but people have to prove they’re innocent.
leftist tripe and pipe dreams
Yeah, that group that filed the suit is.