Citing 14th Amendment, Pascrell Says These GOP House Members Shouldn't Even Be Sworn In

[bucolic_frolic]

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/12/11/citing-14th-amendment-pascrell-says-these-gop-house-members-shouldnt-even-be-sworn

"Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as members of the Congress," writes the longtime Trump critic.

"These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber," he adds.

The text of the 14th Amendment expressly forbids Members of Congress from engaging in rebellion against the United States. Trying to overturn a democratic election and install a dictator seems like a pretty clear example of that. pic.twitter.com/VMnDfd0sFx

— Bill Pascrell, Jr. (@BillPascrell) December 11, 2020

More at the link.

[Laelth]

1. Hear! Hear!

I doubt that Nancy Pelosi would actually do it, but there’s no telling what might happen between now and early January.

If we actually want to win, we must be ready to FIGHT with every single ounce of Constitutional power at our disposal.

-Laelth

[OAITW r.2.0]

2. He is right, those that want to overthrow the popular will of the people really should

not be serving. But, the Biden administration is not going to involve themselves in this ridiculous charade. They have bigger problems to deal with.

[EndlessWire]

4. What's bigger than sedition?

He would make his job easier if he booted these troublemakers. How would this work on the Senate side? Any chance to gain the majority there? Or, McConnell will just seat those that committed sedition, anyway.

They did this to themselves. And, Nancy, House Speaker, does not plan to run again, so she has nothing to lose. I would vote they get booted. Or, prosecuted for sedition.

Either way, to me this was a big deal, and Biden needs to address it.

[OAITW r.2.0]

7. Biden needs to change 71MM minds.

Lets start out by kicking 126 members out of Congress because they are stupid. Will this fix things?

[EndlessWire]

8. I appreciate your opinion.

Why yes, it will greatly help. These same people will be screaming for secession by January. The welfare of our country depends on standing up for the Constitution. This would be a Constitutional defense which became necessary when they all signed onboard to overturn the election just because they didn't like the outcome.

It doesn't matter the venue they chose. They still did it. They all could be tossed in prison for decades for it. Instead, they get to stay in positions of power over all of us? I don't think so!

This isn't a forgivable act. You don't just slap their hands and say, "How could you?" Prosecute their dumb asses!

[scarletwoman]

9. "This isn't a forgivable act." I totally agree!

I'd really like to see some sort of sanction imposed on those 126 anti-democracy bozos.

[dware]

20. Prosecute them for what exactly?

For signing an amicus brief? How is that a crime? They are seditious assholes, but they didn't commit sedition by signing those amicus briefs, no court in the land would even entertain such nonsense.

[EndlessWire]

24. You call them seditious

yet you tolerate this very clear action against the Constitution. Without a shred of evidence, they petition the SC to overthrow the election. That's against the Constitution and the country. It's rooted in a wannabe dictator who would be glad to shred the Constitution to keep power.

It's very much like a cyber strike where because it happens in cyberspace, it is not war. A very subtle difference. I recall when Obama told Putin to his FACE that if he continued to muck about, it would be considered war. Well, that is what Trump and his buddies are doing. It is unfortunate that I cannot use the word TREASON for what they have done.

It is outrageous that they did this. It takes us to the brink of Civil War, which is what Trump wants. Did you or did you not hear that asshole call for secession, and I believe that another one wrote up a bill for the same?

So, I guess we can chalk this up to business as usual. January 20th can't get here fast enough. Meanwhile, let's see what else the treacherous GOP can come up with that we will hold them harmless for.

[TigressDem]

31. The hard part is proving INTENT.

See their INTENT according to the brief was to overturn an election that has been validated multiple times through aggressive intervention by the Supreme Court without any evidence.

They are clearly seeking to invalidate ONLY those states that BIDEN won.... Montana had the same set up and was even challenged by Republicans prior to the election. BUT they aren't calling for ALL states that had changed their mail in ballot process, ONLY those that favored BIDEN.

For putting the force of their office behind a movement that HAS already incited violence...

In Pennsylvania there was an attack prevented, but it was part of the incitement generated by the tRump tweets and various other Reich Wing groups that propose to "use their 2nd amendment rights" if needed.

https://6abc.com/philadelphia-attack-pennsylvania-convention-center-plot-pa-election/7689932/


The lies and disinformation of the tRump campaign all together is very indicative of wanting to thwart a peaceful transfer of power after an election.

THERE IS A CASE that this rhetoric is INCITING PEOPLE TO VIOLENCE


https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/10/27/why-the-risk-of-election-violence-is-high/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/us/election-officials-threats-trump.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/has-stop-harassed-threatened-gop-election-officials-urge-party-leaders-n1249769

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/528402-white-house-condemns-threats-against-election-workers

EVEN AS THEY CONDEMN IT...

Trump attorney Joe diGenova has said that Christopher Krebs, who was the nation’s top former cybersecurity officials, should be “taken out at dawn and shot” for disputing Trump’s assertion of widespread fraud.



LUCKILY, the HOUSE has less protection against being sued or tried for a crime than the Senate.

[StarfishSaver]

16. The House has no power to "boot them" before being seated. And they have not committed the crime

of sedition, so they will not and should not be prosecuted for it.

Let's not get carried away with the MAGA-like demands for people's heads.

[EndlessWire]

22. Oh, let's do

How dare you insult me with your comparison!

What would you be saying if the SC had tonight handed the country to Trump? How much clearer does it have to be?

"Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward rebellion against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or rebellion against, established authority."

We have Trump threatening and punishing people for daring to speak a different opinion against his agenda, yet you compare me to a MAGA because I object to these people calling to overthrow our government? That's what they were doing! And you want to tell them, that's okay!

Oh, I don't think anything will happen to any of them, because, like you, others will say, hey, that's okay. But, this is the way the country will fall, inch by inch. We bend over backwards to accommodate their seditious behavior hoping that no one will be harmed. And, after all, it is terrible to cause a ruckus in the name of justice.

They should be kicked to the curb! But, I guess that would be too MAGA-like for our sensibilities!

[StarfishSaver]

23. The dictionary definition of sedition is irrelevant to this discussion

The only definition that matters is the legal definition that sets forth the elements of the crime. Under the law, sedition requires a use of force. Without it, the crime of sedition has not been committed, no matter what the dictionary says.

You can carry on all you want, but that doesn't change the facts.

Have a good evening.

[EndlessWire]

26. The use of force

can be implied, and that was the point of the secession outcry in time for the ruling.

Good day to you, too.

[TigressDem]

27. They were certainly trying to FORCE us to have 4 more years of a dictator.

BUT the likely hood is that who had envisioned way back in the day that anyone would DARE to use the Supreme Court to try and overthrow the will of the people?


STILL.... there is more to Sedition than JUST force:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy | U.S. Code |

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)


THE INTRICACIES of LAW is that by so many signing on to a petition to overthrow the election, they are in essence conspiring to overthrow the lawfully elected government.

OR BY FORCE indicates that there are different ways to OVERTHROW the government.

[StarfishSaver]

29. Criminal law isn't a three out of four proposition

In order to be guilty of a crime, a person had to meet ALL of the elements of a crime, not just some of them. Force is an essential element of the crime and without it, the crime had not been committed.

And force, as set in the law, doesn't have the definition you're suggesting. Signing an amicus brief is not a use of "force" within the meaning of sedition laws. An amicus brief is a legal act which people have every right to do. It is NOT an act of sedition, regardless how much you try to argue otherwise.

[TigressDem]

32. BUT the law is not stating that FORCE is the ONLY way to conspire to overthrow... READ IT.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy | U.S. Code |

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, ........ or to destroy by force the Government of the United States....


THIS INDICATES that there is MORE to conspiracy than simple force.

OR is in this law SEVERAL TIMES.

WHEN there is an OR it means that NOT ALL conditions are required to meet the full standard of the law.

OVERTHROW is the first type of offence

PUT DOWN is the second

To destroy by force is the third mentioned.


IF they had been linked by AND or IN ADDITION TO then it means multiple criteria MUST be met.


WHEN it is linked by OR it means that EACH of these ACTS is A VIOLATION in and OF itself.


Sedition is not some 3 step process.


Sedition is about intent and the reach of one's influence upon others to act violently on your behalf.

[StarfishSaver]

33. Think whatever you like

I'm not going to waste my time arguing statutory interpretation with you.

You are obviously free to believe whatever you choose to believe.

[TigressDem]

34. It is right there in the law.

It does NOT say that force is the only requirement.

Maybe NOT using force is a lesser offense. But it does not state that it HAS to be force.


Possibly, it is traditionally interpreted that way, but given the circumstances and what would have happened if SCOTUS folded, it could have been an illegal use of power.

[DeminPennswoods]

37. Some of the 126, I'm sure, have been encouraging

the armed and threatening protesters who have been, and are, showing up at the homes of elected officials and election officials trying to overturn the results of the election.

[Guilded Lilly]

3. A.C.C.O.U.N.T.A.B.I.L.I.T.Y. They don't want to serve the constitution, refuse the honor.

[Sogo]

25. Amen.

[Faux pas]

5. Kickin'

[PoliticAverse]

6. Leave the stupid ideas to the Republicans. n/t

[StarfishSaver]

15. IKR?

[RobertDevereaux]

10. SCOTUS gives a massive Fuck You to the seditious traitors.

Bravo!

Now let’s unseat the 126 enemies of democracy.

[StarfishSaver]

11. Sounds good, but he's wrong about this

The House has no authority to deny them their seats.

And no court in the land would find that signing onto an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court constitutes a "rebellion against the United States."

[cstanleytech]

12. Aye, they crossed a line in trying to toss millions of citizens votes in states Trump lost.

[BobTheSubgenius]

13. Even if they try it and it doesn't work,

it will still be fun to see the blood and feathers.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Maybe to those who think politics is entertainment and sport

[smirkymonkey]

18. Like the Republicans?

[StarfishSaver]

19. And apparently some Democrats, as well.

But I think most of us aren't looking for Congress to do things that we think are "fun" but want them to actually get some things done.

[smirkymonkey]

21. No, we are.

I was just making fun of them for turning everything into a clown circus.

[dware]

17. Speaker Pelosi wouldn't even try or suggest it,

she's well versed in the House rules and procedures, she knows this is a non starter.

[PoliticAverse]

40. Because Democrats want to be humiliated by the Supreme Court too? n/t

[Boogiemack]

28. Can individual states seek to withdraw a Representative?

Can a citizens sue a Representative or Senator for seditious acts?

[StarfishSaver]

30. No.

[bucolic_frolic]

35. A lawsuit aimed squarely at the very footings of democracy is not a friendly act

and filing a lawsuit is an attempt to use the force of the judiciary and law enforcement to accomplish one's aims. It's not a walk in the park. At best it's passive-aggressive. Using the rule of law to demolish democracy under the rule of law is an attack on the sovereignty of the State, and I capitalize state to mean the State, the federal government, of the United States of America.

So I'm finding more than a whiff of AG Shapiro's "seditious abuse" in these actions to overturn election results that have been counted, recounted, litigated and relitigated. It's no longer about who won, it's about 'our side didn't win so let's overturn the table.'

As for not seating Republicans, hey it has zero chance of passing, at most it might be a one-day symbolic act or censure that serves a warning. And most people would consider it ridiculous if some state, or citizens filed suit to prevent the seating of duly elected members of Congress. But isn't that what Republicans are attempting to do to President-Elect Joe Biden? Forgive me, it's not a friendly act. It's an attack on the sovereignty of our elections every bit as much as hacking an election computer or disinformation from foreign actors.

[bucolic_frolic]

36. Schmidt: Democracy poisoned

[Karma13612]

38. How about no committee appointments? eom

[Progressive dog]

39. IMO That is a step too far.

It isn't as big a stretch as the Republican action to nullify votes, but it is not going to win friends and influence voters.