"seems like a good day to remind everyone that in 1861, 11 senators and 3 representatives refused to

[orleans]

seems like a good day to remind everyone that in 1861, 11 senators and 3 representatives refused to accept Lincoln's electoral victory and they were expelled straight the fuck from Congress. two years after 2020 we're still spinning our fucking wheels

Link to tweet

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

1. Nancy is still Speaker.

I think they should act now and expel and void the election results for any incoming members that participated

[lapfog_1]

2. I was thinking that all of those that planned or participated or supported

should be arrested and sent to Gitmo.

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

4. Not sure about Gitmo, but

If they are at risk for a ‘Jefferson Davis style’ breakout/‘rescue’ attempt then security would be a concern. They can still be tried on our soil but that’s really up to the investigation team and Nancy/Chuck etc to decide.

There is a line between discussion of a theory of a January 6 style event and any intentional planning of an event like it without on-the-record (or secret but extant record) official approval by the whole of government, but that would still probably qualify a huge swath of these people. The support or participation is also a disqualifier if it was not part of an attempt to make it an official honeypot style plan. The honeypot theory is really the *only* respite for some of them, and it certainly doesn’t appear to have been on the mind of most of these zealous authoritarians seeking to change the constitution by extralegal means to enrich themselves

[tritsofme]

7. She is still speaker, but she doesn't have the dictatorial powers you imagine.

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

10. Which is why, following Article 1, I included Chuck Schumer and 'etc'

To include the rest of the congressional leadership. Plus there’s the executive branch. So in concert, the three of them (House, Senate, and the Executive Branch leadership) in fact have extensive powers.

They can also disregard parliamentary/other undefined customs at will. Trump and co certainly did. And these are unprecedented times calling for unprecedented action if we want a Union that doesn’t get taken over like it was during the last rebellion in the Civil War Post-Reconstruction era

[tritsofme]

12. She can't expel members in the new Congress, or "void" their elections.

That much is clear.

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

14. According to what?

It’s been done before for national security reasons. Define your basis if you claim to know otherwise.

[tritsofme]

15. The Constitution. What in the world are you talking about?

Aside from resignation or death, a member can only be removed by a 2/3 vote in that chamber, not the finger snapping of the speaker.

And when has the old Congress ever voided elections of incoming members for “national security”? This is nonsense.

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

18. Read this please, there are acts overriding that

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

The Disqualification Clause
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice- President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

[tritsofme]

20. Nowhere does it say it that today's Congress can bind the incoming one.

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

21. That's literally what that clause says

Nt.

[tritsofme]

23. So how do you suppose the outgoing speaker imposes her decision here?

How does she prevent the new Congress from swearing in certain people?

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

24. She has full discretion as it is undefined.

Previous articles take over there probably, about them having discretion to set the guiding principles/rules in doing their business.

Per the document:

“
Implementation

It is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing, which, if it is not, would leave federal and state courts or election authorities without power to determine the eligibility of candidates unless Congress enacts legislation to permit it. Courts have produced mixed results on this question. Section 3 does not expressly provide a procedure for its implementation other than Section 5’s general authority of Congress “to enforce [the Fourteenth Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” There might be multiple ways Congress could enforce the Disqualification Clause, including relying on federal criminal prosecution for insurrection and treason, allowing private civil enforcement through writs of quo warranto or other procedures, enacting new legislation establishing general procedures for adjudicating disqualification under Section 3 or for identifying specific disqualified individuals, or unicameral measures by the House or Senate to exclude or expel individuals from their respective houses.”

“An exclusion occurs when either the House or Senate refuses to seat a Member-elect. That power derives from the Constitution’s charge that “Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members” and may be achieved by the vote of a simple majority. An expulsion, on the other hand, occurs when either chamber removes one of its current Members.” (Read: may, this is one option)

[tritsofme]

26. So you're saying the outgoing speaker has no role in the process?

Glad you’ve come to agree!

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

27. If it is self enforcing

She literally just signs a writ and it’s done.

[tritsofme]

28. So the new speaker (whenever they find one) could just sign a writ reversing hers?

And seat the members?

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

29. You're asking me to support the seating of insurrectionist Republicans?

And no. There is no reversal discussed in the clause.

[tritsofme]

31. Where did I ask you to support a Republican?

You are spinning quite a yarn here.

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

32. You asked if a new speaker (which would have to be republican to want to reverse that writ)...

Could do that to seat the insurrectionist Republicans.

“So the new speaker (whenever they find one) could just sign a writ reversing hers?
And seat the members?“

[tritsofme]

33. How do you conflate a hypothetical scenario with asking you to support a Republican?

Pretty strange.

You are taking some magnificent leaps here.

Your own source says it is unclear if the clause is self executing.

You seem to just assume it is, and that the current speaker can issue a unilateral and final finding of disqualification.

Fine, what would prevent Kevin McCarthy, should he become speaker, from making his own [absurd] finding that the protests for racial justice in the summer of 2020 constituted an insurrection, and disqualify any Democratic member that attended?

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

34. Touchy

Cornell Law: “Self-executing broadly refers to something that goes into effect or can be enforced after being created without anything else required.“

Enforcement via writ is therefore possible if it is, and they may merely have to discuss it with leadership and declare it so.

If not by simple writ, then another device discussed in the document.

Also, you shouldn’t leapfrog my claim and retort that way if you want to have an honest discussion.

There is zero equivalency with the racial justice protests because they were not part of a conspiracy amongst elected officials and members of government organizations seeking to overturn an election. Trump and his cohort did, hence the investigation, hence the determinations, hence their pending decisions about how to handle individuals involved, up to but not limited to not seating them, which, by the way, might prevent Kevin from being speaker or the republicans from having a majority.

[tritsofme]

35. Thank you for the definition? As I said, your own source says it is unclear

if it is self executing, you are just assuming it is, and that it works exactly how you would like it to, for some reason.

I agree there is no equivalency, but that is not what I asked.

What is that would prevent a Republican speaker from disqualifying Democrats in bad faith and exercising that same power you claim Pelosi has today?

None of the members you seek to exclude have been convicted of crimes, let alone insurrection.

So if it rests solely on the speaker’s determination, what limits McCarthy from making absurd ones?

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

37. Because there has been no investigation linking them to insurgency or insurrection?

It’s obvious. There’s no way that can be conflated. Without evidence of similar bad faith manipulations of the system any committee they may try to pull together would just be a smear campaign about things they don’t like, not things that were actively done to undermine the constitutional order which may not favor them because of how crappy and shady they are, hence public revulsion even with all of their propaganda and gerrymandering.

So Nancy and the committee are well within their prerogative to proceed, even if, per their mandate, they have to make one-time custom rules and guidelines for the swift rejection of incoming members that participated knowingly in overturning our system vs simply voicing political opinions about how it would/should be

[brooklynite]

16. A lot of people here really need a Civics refresher.

It doesn't MATTER that "Nancy is still Speaker". It doesn't matter that Democrats control the House. The Constitution clearly states:

Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

17. Correct for ordinary expulsion, but

The Disqualification Clause
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment provides:
No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice- President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

For further details see The Militia Clause and more in this linked documented discussion: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10569

[brooklynite]

19. And again, none of them have been accused of insurrection (other than by the blogosphere)...

...much less indicted and convicted.

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

22. Yet.

The committee and leadership haven’t made their final moves.

[ExtremelyWokeMatt]

25. Also

There are other ways

If you read that document fully there are no documented rules for exclusion under this clause, and it *may* only need a simple majority unless they use another mechanism

“
Implementation
It is unclear whether Section 3 is self-executing, which, if it is not, would leave federal and state courts or election authorities without power to determine the eligibility of candidates unless Congress enacts legislation to permit it. Courts have produced mixed results on this question. Section 3 does not expressly provide a procedure for its implementation other than Section 5’s general authority of Congress “to enforce [the Fourteenth Amendment] by appropriate legislation.” There might be multiple ways Congress could enforce the Disqualification Clause, including relying on federal criminal prosecution for insurrection and treason, allowing private civil enforcement through writs of quo warranto or other procedures, enacting new legislation establishing general procedures for adjudicating disqualification under Section 3 or for identifying specific disqualified individuals, or unicameral measures by the House or Senate to exclude or expel individuals from their respective houses.“

[republianmushroom]

3. Nailed it

[ColinC]

5. The reason for expulsion is not true

The reason was due to the civil war having occurred and those congress people pledging their loyalty to the south. Acknowledging Lincoln’s election had nothing to do with it.

Misinformation like this is another sound reason to delete twitter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/01/02/fact-check-14-congressmen-expelled-1861-supporting-confederacy/4107713001/

[Just A Box Of Rain]

8. Thank you for correcting disinformation.

It sure would be nice if people fact checked such items before they spread them here.

[Hekate]

9. Adding my thanks

[Raine]

13. THANKS for putting out the correct info. 👍 nt

[sarisataka]

6. Twitter strikes again

[lpbk2713]

11. Just like Lincoln said ...

[IronLionZion]

30. We had a civil war about this

when I point out to MAGA douchebags that Trump's family came to America after the Civil War, they *ALWAYS* tell me to leave America immediately.

[Initech]

36. Marjorie Greene is still a representative.

I won't rest until that vile shitbag is thrown out on her hateful ass and arrested with all of her other treasonous friends.