"... a serious discussion about whether individual Republican House Members are disqualified ...."

[L. Coyote]

Link to tweet

[I_UndergroundPanther]

1. I will definately be getting

Doritos, fritos and cheetos,some beer and more

[AmBlue]

2. Marc Elias... YOU ROCK!!

This guy is killin' it. Have donated to Democracy Docket to support his efforts several times.

[Hoyt]

3. Better hurry. Not sure a conviction is required under S 3, but bet it

won’t work without one. Although might could remove them later.

Personally, think we need to prepare to beat these deplorables at the polls, and stop trying to find some questionable method of disqualifying them.

[Gore1FL]

14. The Judicial branch has no say in House membership.

Nancy Pelosi will still have the gavel and should refuse to seat any that managed to get re-elected.

[Hoyt]

20. Disagree, unless there is overwhelming evidence. That likely requires indictment and/or conviction.

Don't like GOPers either, but one can't talk about preserving Democracy and refuse to seat duly elected representatives. Sorry.

[Gore1FL]

21. That conflicts with separation of powers.

From Article 1, Section 5:

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members,

[Hoyt]

22. Don't think "he's a trump supporter so kick him out of his elected position" works in a Democracy.

I get despising them, but this is a Democracy.

[Gore1FL]

23. If they are tied to 1-6 via the congressional committee investigation it, that should be enough. nt

[Hoyt]

24. Don't agree. Now if they show Gym Jordan called trump and told him to sic the Proud Boyz on

the Capitol, yeah disqualify him. But just because he called the Prez, ain't enough in a true Democracy.

[Gore1FL]

25. I agree it should be more than a phone call.

My point is that the determinations will be intra rather than inter-branch.

This has been a great conversation. I have an extra heart to give out. It's yours, now!

[Hoyt]

26. Thanks. Take care. Hopefully things will work out.

[quakerboy]

27. They might well have a say on whether there was officially, legally, an insurrection

I assume that you agree that adjudicating whether a specific legal crime or offense or situation has occured is a major part of their purview?

[Gore1FL]

29. Certainly that is the major part of their purview. The U.S. House is none of their purview.

The House has that ability in this situation, and the Constitutional authority to set whatever guidelines they feel like they can enforce. Would a court case help to add credibility? Absolutely. I hope many are tried.

There is no Constitutional means for the Judiciary to intervene in House of Representative operations.

[quakerboy]

30. you are arguing against semantics that werent used.

Noone said that the judiciary would remove house members. The post you responded to literally indicated that convictions would give the legislature the basis for removing them.

As to the rest.. think about the implications. If the house doesn't need any legal basis to decide that a member participated in an insurrection and wont be allowed to be seated.. What happens the next time the R's take over?

[Gore1FL]

31. Not a basis. It would be supportive. Let me quote an authoritative source:

Article I of the U.S Constitution, Section 5
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members...

[quakerboy]

32. Are you a lawyer?

If so, i cede your argument on the basis that you are using technical terminology and I am using descriptive. If not.. well, i dont know enough about the technical terminology to continue on that basis.

However, I will ask this. Whatever the technical wording is, if the precedent is set of excluding elected persons without anything definitively supportive to meet the grounds of that exclusion or expulsion, which group do you think will make most free use of that newly realized power when they control the body?

[duhneece]

4. And this seems to include Couy Griffin, 1/6 defendant and founder of Cowboys for Trump

I’m watching closely. May be worth a visit with an attorney if Couy files to run in March.
Following with baited breath.

[Cha]

5. Rt TY & Marc Elias!

[Skittles]

6. over ONE HUNDRED of them OFFICIALLY ENDORSED that shame

THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN AMERICA

[L. Coyote]

9. The Sedition Caucus, 147 members

If they claim they believed the lies, that's even more pathetic than joining #FailedCoupGuy's tragic plotting. Either way, stupid or ignorant, there's no excuse for criminally trying to overthrow democracy.

Link to tweet

[Uncle Joe]

7. Well here are two interesting articles which I haven't read all of

because I'm getting sleepy but I will read them more in depth tomorrow.

https://www.justsecurity.org/74739/their-fourteenth-amendment-section-3-and-ours/

https://www.justsecurity.org/32120/time-terms-secret-law-part/

Thanks for the thread L. Coyote and have a good night.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Better have that discussion NOW. . . .nt

[RainCaster]

10. So... It would take a 2/3s vote to keep one of those

Bastids in the House or Senate?

[SergeStorms]

12. It would take a 2/3 vote to dismiss them.

And you know how these vermin stick together, even with the most damning evidence against the others.

Right, wrong, guilt, innocence......these words mean nothing to the sitting GQP Representatives.

[aggiesal]

16. I read it the same as RainCaster ...

But, Congress may by a vote of two-thirds in each House, remove such disability.

The word "But" at the start of the sentence is trying to "not" use the penalties mentioned with 2/3rds vote in each House.

[hydrolastic]

19. Does anyone feel like we need a break?

I mean we can get rid of these people but only if we can get...... (some unobtainable item)

[Sucha NastyWoman]

11. Needs to include all of the insurrectionist that are now running for office for the first time

There’s one named Middleton in Texas (not in my Congressional district)

[L. Coyote]

13. Where patriotism outweighs tribalism, they will bepunished at the polls.

[Cha]

17. Kick for Marc Elias

[Deminpenn]

18. Cawthorn is the test case here

nt

[quakerboy]

28. I can see different ways to read this and take it

Seems to me that we are unlikely to apply it at all, because even now, our elected officials are by and large too willing to just let things go and not fight.

That said.. the easiest way to apply it would be to apply to to individuals who actively participated in attacking the capital. Which would not include any current active house members (at least, not unless/until someone proves their participation in a court). But It would apply to the new crop of Trump snowflakes who are hoping to win office in the next election.

And that.. might have a chance of some bipartisanship, given the way they want to win positions is largely by displacing regular old shrub type republicans from their positions