the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
As of noon today, the person who won the election is sworn in as a house member. I don’t see anything in this wording that allows for a “condition” for them to be sworn in as a house member, and wait to see if the vote changes then kick them out and swear in a new house member.
Allowing Miller-Meeks to take office does not preclude the House from later deciding that Hart should rightfully hold the seat representing Southeast Iowa, including Iowa City.
Miller-Meeks was certified the winner in Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District by just six votes out of more than 400,000 cast. A bipartisan canvassing board of top state officials voted unanimously Nov. 30 to certify the results following recounts in each of the district’s 24 counties.
Okay then, how about this. On the 20th, Biden is condittionally sworn in as president. A 30 day review by an independent prosocutor with full supeana authority will have 30 days to review the presidential election. if the independent prosocutor finds that there was enough shenanigans to sway the vote in certain states, they be awared to Trump. If Trump then has the electoral votes, Biden is removed from office and Trump sworn in.
good enough for the house, good enough for President right?
Or should the court say the constitutional deadline of Jan 3rd has passed and stop the review of the house election that HAS BEEN CERTIFIED?
Then why ignore the constition and conditionally swear in a house member. Constitution is cleear, their term starts on the 3rd. The certifed results as of today should be it . . . shouldn’t it?
the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Since when?
According to the constition, the new term starts Jan 3rd at noon, and the new member is sworn in. I don’t see anything about conditions do you?
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Again, please point me to where the specified section of the constition says it’s a conditional swear on as the constituition requires on the 3rd. If they are concerned about the qualifications, shouldn’t they not swear in and tell the state to hold a new election, or appoint a new house member?
In my opinion, the court should rule that the election was certified, and the constitutional time limit for any changes has passed at noon on Jan 3rd and dismiss the case as moot. If they don’t, then the house member should appearl to the supreme court upon the house trying to remove them without a full vote of the house as the constitution requires to remove a member. That being done, it would be up the the state to schedule a special election to fill the seat.
Because they can’t. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress cannot refuse to seat elected members - Powell v. McCormick - but they can seat, and then eject a member if they so vote.
So in this case, Pelosi is seating Miller-Meeks under the assumption that she won. If it turns out that Hart won, the House will vote to eject Miller-Meeks, and seat Hart.
If they vote to expell miller-meeks. A person who was been seated. Constitution is clear that a special election will be held to replace the seat. They can’t seat Hart under the constitution.
Surely you can read the constitution that the new congress critters take office Jan 3 at noon. I don’t see anything allowing provisional swearing in, then awarding to a different person as the articles and another poster has aluded to.
No the doc hasn’t. If a member of cogress is expelled, dies, or resigns. A special elelction is required to fill the seat. The oppoinent, after Jan 3 can not be seated.
Well, they can - because of what I posted earlier:
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
This has happened before, and the Courts have found it to be a political question, and non-justiciable. Hart has filed her challenge under the Federal Contested Elections Act.
When seated on Jan 3 at noon, they are deemed to be qualified for the position.
If they remove the member by vote of the house, it leaves a vacancy. At that point, this kicks in:
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
Sorry – but when sworn in to office on Jan 3 they are qualified and the returns show they should be sworn in. The court ruling after that date, would require a vote of the house to remove the member. Upon removal, there is NOW a vacancy – and the executive authority (aka state legislature/governor) shall call for an election to fill it.
There is no well we will remove a sitting house member and fill it with who we want to.
No, not necessarily. That is why they are only seating Miller-Meeks conditionally.
You are incorrect. This has already happened, multiple times in our history. The House has the authority to judge their own elections, and seat the winner. If the House determines that Miller-Meeks was not the winner, and Hart was - they can seat Hart without a special election. There’s even a law that details the process.
