Can Pelosi conditionaly swear in a house member, then take the seat away?

Yes it is. That is the constitutional start of the elected representatives term. If not qualified, they object to it and don’t seat the member. Once they are seated, their term has started, and can only be removed by a vote of the house at that point.

There is NO conditionally seating or start of term in the constitution. On Jan 3, once sworn in, it is that persons seat.

It’s blatently unconstitutional sorry. I would hope that if they try that end run, it goes to the supreme court and they look at the clear language of the constitution. They are seated on Jan 3 at noon. If removed, then the state is required to set an election.

Rules of the house can not superceede the election.

It’s already been to the Supreme Court, and they ruled they have no jurisdiction. House decisions are political in nature, and non-justiciable. The House has the Constitutional authority to judge their elections, however they choose to do so.

please link to the rulling so I can read it.

I can’t seem to find it with my google skills. I can find members who were not seated, I can find members expelled, I can find members that were censured. But I can’t find anything on members who were constitutionally seated, then removed and replaced with their opponant.

only two I can find:

  • Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. (D-New York), a sitting representative, was excluded by the House of Representatives in 1967 because of allegations of corruption. He successfully sued to retain his seat in a landmark Supreme Court decision (see Powell v. McCormack).

Court ruled in the seated house members favor.

  • Louis C. Wyman (R-New Hampshire) was declared the victor of the US Senate contest in 1974 in New Hampshire by a narrow margin on Election Day (355 votes). A first recount gave the election instead to John A. Durkin (D-New Hampshire) by ten votes, but a second recount swung the result back to Wyman by only two votes. The state of New Hampshire certified Wyman as the winner, but Durkin appealed to the Senate, which had a sixty vote Democratic majority. The Senate refused to seat Wyman while considering the matter. After a long and contentious debate in the Senate, with Republicans filibustering attempts by the Democratic majority to seat Durkin instead, a special election was held, with Durkin winning handily and becoming Senator.

And a senator they refused to seat until the election was clear and decided.

I can find a little information on
McCloskey versus McIntyre
But that also involves not seating a house member until may

I can find multiple cases of a house or senate member not being sworn in due to confliction over election, THEN being sworn in once it’s resolved (sometimes months later). But I can not find any removed after swearing in start of term other than by vote of house.

No, that’s not what happened in Powell v. McCormick.

Adam Clayton Powell was not seated with the new Congress - which is why he sued, and was only seated after he won his case. There was also no question that Powell was legitimately elected - which is the basis for how the case was decided.

If Clayton’s election had been contested, the question wouldn’t be whether the House could choose not to seat him, because they are the judge of Congressional elections, and have the authority to make those determinations themselves.

They are not otherwise allowed to deny seating.

A more relevant case would be the last significant contested House election, in 1985 - McIntyre v. McCloskey in the Indiana 8th. In that situation, the House refused to seat either party for 4 months, until the House performed its own recount.

By refusing to seat either party, the House created a “vacancy” - which, under your logic, would have required a special election. It did not, because the seat was not vacant, but contested.

Neither can I.

But nevertheless, there are significant reasons to suggest that it would be treated the same as a conditional seating.

Again those are DIFFERENT than the house member being sworn in and starting their term while awaiting a court decision. Once that happens, they can only be removed by a vote of the house (not just pelosi saying, you lost get out). Once removed by the houser, it creates a vacancy. The others were following the contestation rules of the house, and they were not seated until their was a satisfacotory conclusion. that is NOT a vacancy under the constitution.

You are comparing apples to oranges on those NOT seated, and one being seated as qualifed to hold the position. Once that happens, they can only be removed by a vote of the house, and under the constitution that creates a vacancy, and a new election MUST be held.

I’m still waiting for your supreme court case where a person was SEATED under the constitution and removed and their competitor put in place.

I understand that this is what you believe - how you interpret the Constitution.

But that doesn’t really matter. There’s absolutely no precedent to support your interpretation.

If the House determines that Hart won, and decides to seat her - and Miller-Meeks sues, then maybe this question will be answered, although I think it would be staggeringly unlikely for the Court to intervene.

I’m trying to find the precedent of a member SWORN IN to start their 2 year term, that was then replaced by an opponant.

Only things I can find is those that were contested and not sworn in, and those that were removed by vote of the house after sworn in.

And that’s the issue. If they decide Hart won – they have already sworn and seated a person to that seat. Kind of hard to reverse that. They should have followed precedence and contested the seating until the court case was completed. There is no provisional swearing in and seating in the constitutional amendment setting the date and time. Once that date and time arrives and passes, when the member is sworn in, the rest of the constitution kicks in. Removed by vote of the house, and state hold new election to fill the vacany.

That is not precedent to support the claim that seating, and then un-seating Miller-Meeks would be unconstitutional.

A lack of precedent is not precedent.

1 Like

Yes, he has.

No it isn’t.

You know precendent is something that has happened before. Right now there is NO precedent I can find. I’m still waiting for you to give the the court case of a member of the house being sworn in, THEN replaced by an opponent. Everything you’ve given me is completely different.

Being sworn in as a member of the house of representatives for a two year term? It is kind of hard to reverse that. Takes a majority vote in the house.

Which the dems have.

No, there’s no such thing as a provisional swearing in, if she won, she won.

Conceivably if that were to change though the house can expel a member by vote and they’d then have to swear in the “new winner”.

There is no provision in our constitution for tossing out the votes of the EC however at least none that I know of.

Conceivably they can try to hold up the final certification in The Senate but one way or another The Constitution says the new president will be sworn in on Jan 20 period.

One way or another Trump is going to have to reconcile himself to that fact.

Republicans can launch a protest if they want and if they believe the election was stolen they should but it won’t change the outcome.

If they truly believe this election was stolen on Jan 21 they need to get off their asses and demand change, change to a system that is fraud proof or at least as fraud proof as we can make it.

She won because the state certified her as the winner. Then the house accepted that certification and allowed her to be sworn in to take the seat. No court opinion can now take that away . . . . except for . . .

No, the constitution is clear. If they expel a member, then a new election SHALL take place. Had they disputed the seating and not sworn in the member, then the other could be sworn in. Way they’ve don it, the state will have to hold a new election if they remove the now sitting house member.

Technically there is. If enouch EC votes are challenged and not accepted, and the number falls below a certain threshold . . . then it goes to the House to pick the President and the Senate to pick the Vice President.
I give it less than 1% chance of Trump getting the presidency.

Yes, even if it is a president picked by the house delegations, and the vp selected by the senate.