again, how do they over rules the constitution?
They should not have seated her if there was a dispute over the seat.
Once she was seated (there is NO provisional in the constitution).
It now takes 2/3 vote to remove the house member
upon removal it creates a vacancy and a new election shall be held.
For the love of god, show me a provisional status in the constitution. It. does. not. exiest.
House makes it own rules.
Btw I am sure you won’t read it.
But here was the results of the 1996 election of Loretta Sanchez.
See the date February 1998
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-105hrpt416/html/CRPT-105hrpt416.htm
House oversight committee voted 8-1 against bob dornan election contest.
A full year later.
The house judges elections of its members.
Allan
Yes.
And those rules can not go against the constitution. There is precedent for them not swearing in a member of congress while it was contested.
And there was no vote for removal, it was dismissed by the committee.
So there was no vote to remove the house member.
So that part of the constitution didn’t play out.
The constitution is CLEAR. once seated they can only be removed by 2/3 vote. Leaving a vacancy that shall be filled by election.
From the link
“On December 26, 1997, Mr. Dornan filed a Notice of Contest
with the Committee (``Dornan’s Notice’’) under jurisdiction
granted by the U.S. Constitution \2\ and the FCEA.\3\ On
January 7, 1997, Ms. Sanchez was sworn in as a Member of the
105th Congress.\4\ On January 8, 1997 the Committee met and
formed a Task Force to handle this contest”
Sworn in and then they considered the contest.
The house shall rule on the election of its members.
Allan
They don’t. The makes it’s own rules.
We shall to agree to disagree on this point.
Allan
Once seated the constution is CLEAR on how the house member is removed. 2/3 vote of the house. Supreme court would vacate anything less if they follow the constitition.
If the house tried to put in the other candidate. The supreme court would vacate and order an election as the constitution is clear that if a house member is removed, then a new election shall be called.
A law can not contradict the constitution.
It’s not a law but a rule. Set up by the constitution.
Shall. It’s quite definite.
Allan
That’s not the final arbitration.
This is.
From my congressional link
“Of the 107 contested election cases considered by the House since 1933, it appears that in at least 15 cases, the Member-elect was asked to “step aside” or “remain seated” while the oath of office was collectively administered to the other Members-elect on the first day of a new Congress.19 Of those 15 cases where a Member-elect was asked to step aside, it appears that in at least two instances, the Member-elect was subsequently administered the oath on an expressly provisional basis.20 Typically, during such provisional administrations of the oath, the House adopts a privileged resolution authorizing the Speaker to administer the oath, and further providing that “the question of the final right” of the Member-elect to a seat in the new Congress be referred to the appropriate committee of jurisdiction and that such committee “shall have the power to send for persons and papers and examine witnesses on oath” in relation to the contest.”
Allan
See provisionally.
Allan
No the Constitution is clear that the 2/3 rule for expulsion is when expulsion is being used as a disciplinary measure. That’s what that section is all about.
In this case, a member wouldn’t be removed because of a disciplinary act.
A member would be removed and replaced with the person the House judged actually won the election…that’s what the “judge their own elections” power grants them.
Rita Hart filed her House challenge in December.
That was well within the 30 days of a state certification as required by the FCEA.
There is no constitutional argument against what’s going down right now.
There are plenty of political arguments against going down this path but that’s for the House majority to decide.
Again…if you’re going to claim to be Constitution defenders…start boning up on what the Constitution actually says, OK?
Political arguments favor the provisionally sworn in congressperson.
Allan
Whatever the Constitution says, and I assume you have it correct, it is a dangerous course to have the majority party to start censoring and worse, removing, members of the minority party who have been certified by their states.
Democrats want to argue that the denial by Trump of the legitimacy of the election weakens our democracy. The path some are entering are going right along that line.
HR1 will only add to that.
Democracy in the US depends on a belief in the credibility of our elections.
There is a lot going on against that credibility just now.
Hart isn’t denying the legitimacy of the election.
She’s not claiming fraud.
She’s claiming there are ballots that should have been counted that weren’t counted, and if counted would erase her 6 vote deficit. She’s claiming they shouldn’t have been rejected by the bipartisan committee that ran the recount, and she is citing Iowa law she believes is on her side in this matter.
She isn’t claiming they weren’t counted because of fraud. She isn’t claiming nefarious motives on the part of those who ran the election…isn’t claiming they failed to count those ballots to give the election to her opponent.
What she is doing is as different from what Trump did as night is from day.
This is a six vote difference. Knock it off with the baseless comparisons.
So what you’re saying is, both sides are just as bad.
It an optical thing, J
Bad political optics.
There is a reason close elections are not contested by sane people.
Trump was screw the optics, and that cost the rs the senate.
No matter how right harts claims.
Nancy should just say. Try again in 2022.
Would put a feather in her cap and the dems.
Allan
I said I agree the political arguments not to do this are strong.
But from a “danger to our Republic” perspective this is nothing like what Trump did.
This is a perfectly valid constitutional method of contesting an election which in a sane world would be recognized as such.
The heavy lifting still has to be done by Hart…as it should be.
She is calling for fellow Democrats to throw out the certified vote count in her favor. The proper people have already considered all those votes. Now she wants her partisan would be colleagues to throw that away in her favor.
You can’t sugar coat that.
No sugarcoating necessary.
Because that’s not what’s happening, and my guess is it won’t resolve in her favor anyway…for political reasons.
If we lived in a sane society, this would be recognized as the constitutional method of challenge that it is. Anyone same realizes a six vote difference and the context surrounding what Hart is doing is as different from ~400,000 votes over three states and what Donald Trump tried to do as night is from day.
But of course we don’t live in a sane society anymore.
