House Democrat invokes Civil War amendment that would prevent 126 Republicans from being seated in C
Source: Lancaster Courier
House Democrat invokes Civil War amendment that would prevent 126 Republicans from being seated in Congress
Since 126 House Republicans signed off on outgoing President Donald Trump’s attempts to subvert democracy to stay in power, a House Democrat is now urging Democratic House leaders to use the 14th Amendment to prevent them from being seated in the next Congress.
Trump’s latest effort to overturn the election results failed miserably on Friday when all nine Justices rejected Texas’ long-shot lawsuit demanding the high court disenfranchise voters in four states and declare Trump the winner of the 2020 Election.
Not only did over a dozen Republican state attorneys general join the lawsuit, 126 Republicans in the House signed off on it as well, therefore they all sought to overthrow democracy and the Constitution in a betrayal of our country that constitutes treason.
Well, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) has a remedy to punish all 126 of those Republicans and he urged Democratic House leaders to invoke it. It turns out that Section III of the 14th Amendment, which was passed by Congress and ratified just after the Civil War, makes it clear that such lawmakers can’t hold office.
Read more: https://www.lancastercourier.com/2020/12/11/house-democrat-invokes-civil-war-amendment-that-would-prevent-126-republicans-from-being-seated-in-congress/?fbclid=IwAR3ujQWX-banIhmH9I9AFu5_1Eog9CmhGWvJ49eF3veERGUtrYvyLXGYohI
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bengus81
(10,165 posts)Trump KILLS everything he touches strikes again.................
Stallion
(6,642 posts)ripcord
(5,553 posts)It is ridiculous to think that filing a case in a U.S. court is treason.
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)Now you see it, now you don't. The line-in-the-sand not-stand-your-ground foundational rules of backpedal-retreat-rout.
I know. I know. I can't turn water to wine either.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)You can not levy war on the U.S. through the court system, is it really that hard to understand?
solara
(3,894 posts)call it Sedition
Sedition: The federal law against seditious conspiracy can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code (which includes treason, rebellion, and similar offenses), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 2384. According to the statutory definition of sedition, it is a crime for two or more people within the jurisdiction of the United States:
To conspire to overthrow or destroy by force the government of the United States or to level war against them;
To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States;
or
To take, seize, or possess by force any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.
Sedition differs from treason (defined in Article III of the U.S. Constitution) in a fundamental way. While seditious conspiracy is generally defined as conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of a state, treason is the more-serious offense of actively levying war against the United States or giving aid to its enemies. Another way of looking at it is that seditious conspiracy often occurs before an act of treason.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)From your post "To oppose by force the authority of the United States government; to prevent, hinder, or delay by force the execution of any law of the United States" how is leaving the matter up to the U.S. courts opposing by force?
Smackdown2019
(1,358 posts)Hinder when states have certified their electors on safe harbor day; thereby to ignoring the Law of which lays the process of our democratic principles to elect our US President. When the Republicans traitors enacted onto this court case to request the Supreme Court to side with them, not by rule of law, but rule of Trumpism; therefore Article 14, Section 3 applies!
ripcord
(5,553 posts)You don't know much about the law do you?
dware
(18,060 posts)That's just common sense.
Smackdown2019
(1,358 posts)Hindering by creating HAVOC is! Going against the rule of law, which this lawsuit was attempting to do, is hindering. Now Limbaugh is suggesting for those states to secede from the Union. I have seen that on my Facebook and its alarming. I do know the law sir, also know hinder actual cases do case harm as well. They fell on their faces this week, sorry last month and now they are grasping for anything to save their fuhrer trump. I am still worried about the state we are in. Afraid of the extreme Trumpism that plagues this nation, just like the plague he has lit on fire across the world. I am afraid of a coup d'é·tat coming this January.
Wednesdays
(22,603 posts)After all, that worked out so well in 1865, didn't it?
Smackdown2019
(1,358 posts)I am in Missouri, dont want any nonsense. Want normalcy back!
sandensea
(23,343 posts)Should the shoe ever be in the other foot again - as it was in 2000 and '16.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)Really???
The Mouth
(3,414 posts)but do it first.
Once the fascist traitors are disenfranchised and deported, along with their families, after confiscation of all their assets, given a micro chip implant so that they will NEVER be allowed inside the country again along with a facial tattoo that says "LOSER" in all official U.N. languages, *then* we can start having nice polite discussions about cozy little concepts like right and wrong.
Survival comes first.
Anyone who signed on to or supported any attempt to overturn the election deserves exactly as much empathy and understanding as a cancer cell a surgeon removes from one's body.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)ripcord
(5,553 posts)Not ridiculous, illegal knee jerk reactions.
EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)And, there aren't any knee-jerk reactions. You can't whitewash your rudeness and insulting verbiage by claiming a love for the law. You are arrogant.
People are frustrated and trying to understand. You take pleasure in saying these rude things because you are disdainful of others. It pleases you to say these things, and that doesn't come from a love of the law.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)The treason accusation has been bandied about on DU for the last four years, despite it being explained (exhaustively) that it really doesn't apply. People foaming at the mouth and screeching that filing a court case is treason (Narrator Voice: it isn't) is certainly a knee-jerk reaction. I don't think ripcord was particularly rude, personally. You, on the other hand, made direct personal attacks against him/her. How rude, indeed.
DonaldsRump
(7,715 posts)They are most definitely actionable in their own right. You might not want to be so dismissive about this point. Rather, the key issue is "by force."
Here are just two examples that immediately spring to mind.
Abuse of process: This is a tort that can give rise to civil claims/damages.
An abuse of process is the unjustified or unreasonable use of legal proceedings or process to further a cause of action by an applicant or plaintiff in an action. It is a claim made by the respondent or defendant that the other party is misusing or perverting regularly issued court process (civil or criminal) not justified by the underlying legal action. In common law it is classified as an intentional tort. It is to be distinguished from malicious prosecution, another type of tort that involves misuse of the public right of access to the courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_of_process
Antitrust: Generally, invoking the judicial process cannot give rise to antitrust liability, unless the litigation is sham. This is the "sham exception" to the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine.
Exception for sham proceedings
There is a "sham" exception to the Noerr–Pennington doctrine which holds that using the petitioning process simply as an anticompetitive tool without legitimately seeking a positive outcome to the petitioning destroys immunity.
The Supreme Court has articulated a two-part test to determine the existence of "sham" litigation. First, such suits must be "objectively baseless in the sense that no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits." If that threshold is met, the court will inquire whether the suit demonstrates evidence of a subjective intent to use governmental process to interfere with a competitor's business.
For example, in California Motor Transport v. Trucking Unlimited, the United States Supreme Court held that the Noerr–Pennington doctrine did not apply where defendants had sought to intervene in licensing proceedings for competitors, because the intervention was not based on a good-faith effort to enforce the law, but was solely for the purpose of harassing those competitors and driving up their costs of doing business. The sine qua non of a "sham" proceeding is not the purpose to harm a competitor, but rather the absence of any purpose to actually obtain government action. Thus, initiating an administrative proceeding that one actually hopes to win in order to harm one's competitors is within the ambit of the Noerr–Pennington doctrine, while initiating a similar proceeding that one does not meaningfully intend to win solely to delay one's business competitors is within the sham exception.
In 1993, the Supreme Court rejected a purely subjective definition of a "sham" lawsuit, and set out a two-part test. Under the first prong of the test, a lawsuit fits within the "sham" exception to First Amendment immunity only if the lawsuit is objectively baseless in that "no reasonable litigant could realistically expect success on the merits." Only if the challenged litigation meets the first prong ("objectively baseless" ) may a court go on to the next prong, which consists of a determination of whether the litigant's subjective motivation in filing the objectively baseless lawsuit was an attempt to interfere with the business of a competitor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noerr%E2%80%93Pennington_doctrine#:~:text=There%20is%20a%20%22sham%22%20exception,to%20the%20petitioning%20destroys%20immunity.
azureblue
(2,728 posts)especially when the GOP has filed lawsuit after lawsuit on the most specious and frivolous of grounds. So, in kind, the House can refuse to seat the seditious representatives. The GOP opened the door to this type of action and there is reason not to go through it.
Then take it to the SC where the reps will have to defend themselves vs what they declared in the original lawsuit that was slapped down. IOW they will try to have it both ways, but the SC pretty much have to reaffirm their original decision and throw out the subsequent lawsuit, so the refusal to seat will stand.
If I read the Constitution correctly, it is a matter of a decision of the leader of the House. No doubt she has figured this one out long ago and she will use it as a bat against the GOP, because, for sure, the GOP will continue to ignore the law, and file more baseless lawsuits. SO we just file the right back.
Smackdown2019
(1,358 posts)Look at what they are doing across the nation by force at elected leaders homes.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)Force is not the same as bringing cases to court, no matter how farfetched the legal claims are.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)Simply for the reason that they left it up to the court to decide.
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)or a conspiracy to use force. Going to court is not force.
ripcord
(5,553 posts)
TwilightZone
(28,836 posts)Filing lawsuits isn't "by force".
As for treason, there are no declared enemies and no active hostilities. The term doesn't apply. That doesn't stop it from being misused constantly on DU.
AZ8theist
(7,377 posts)NEEDS TO BE JAILED AND CHARGED WITH SEDITION. PERIOD.
jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)And a court system. There is a difference, I believe. I was under the impression that efforts to take a state out of the union by secession were frowned upon.
Nitram
(27,749 posts)
PSPS
(15,321 posts)
onenote
(46,142 posts)Which is what Section 3 of the 14th Amendment specifically was intended to address.
Any attempt not to seat any of the Republicans based on their having signed an amicus brief would be unanimously struck down by the Supreme Court in a nanosecond.
randr
(12,648 posts)
c-rational
(3,203 posts)BComplex
(9,914 posts)is what they should do.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)Who cares if won't go anywhere!
So many Democrats don't see that the winning of these small battles is not the only thing that matters in the long run
The Republicans have figured out that all you need is to hold hearings, over and over on the same false presumptions ie. Hillary...Benghazi....emails!......to create a narrative with much of the population.
We shy away from wasting congressional time, or only seeing it valuable if we have a chance of winning it. Dem politicians seem unable to grasp that perception is 90%.
We should be counter-suing every day they sue. We should be reacting to this for what it is. Insurrection against the country and democracy. And react in as much a sobe, serious way that this calls for.
c-rational
(3,203 posts)public opinion and messaging. Let the reThugs defend themselves and tell the American people why they are not traitors.
onenote
(46,142 posts)Because that is what would happen.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)Its unclear whether the majority in the House could simply vote on the matter. Or if it could be challenged to the SCOTUS.
I'm not saying be superfluous with law suits, but just at least ACTING serious, and countering Republicans, WHETHER WE WIN OR LOSE, is beneficial in showing Democrats as fighters. But I don't think a ruling on this would automatically be 0 - 9.
"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
"Aid and or comfort" could be argued.
And by arguing it, the Democrats point of view about aiding an insurrection, would be front and center on most news casts every day. Giving their rationalizations. Keeping it in the public's mind what Republicans are doing, and why it matters to at least try and stop them.
onenote
(46,142 posts)In 1969, the Supreme Court held that it can review actions by Congress excluding a duly elected member and that the only grounds on which a member can be excluded are the member's failure to satisfy the the three "standing qualifications" for serving in Congress spelled out in the Constitution: age, residency, citizenship. In the Powell case, the Court reversed a decision to exclude a member from being seated even where there were enough votes to exclude to expel.
And in light of that decision, there is absolutely no reason to think an action challenging the refusal to seat Republicans for having signed not the amicus brief wouldn't be struck down unanimously (and quickly) by the current Court.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,689 posts)I would still contend that its not about winning every case, its about setting the narrative of the nightly news. Which Republicans do well at.
dutch777
(5,068 posts)If you want a stunt, this will be one, but given they sought recourse through the courts not riots in the street, this can only backfire embarrassingly.
RAB910
(4,030 posts)I am not one of them. We can't allow this to happen again. These elected officials violated their oaths of office and demanded that the Supreme Court overturn a just and fair election. Worse, they justified their seditious demands with lies that were presented to the Supreme Court
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)I do see people here pointing out that filing a court case (or endorsing it) does not equal treason or sedition, regardless of how silly the case may have been. Pointing out that an activity isn't treasonous isn't the same as agreeing with that activity or defending the people who undertook that activity. It's simply stating a fact.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,477 posts)I quote Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Incidentally, a major reason that the framers of the Constitution were explicit in their definition of treason stemmed from an incident during the reign of Henry VIII of England. One of Henry's political enemies, Lord Montague, was arrested and told the charge was treason. He said, "I have committed no treason." The arresting officer replied, "Treason is what the king says it is." The framers knew their history, and did not want treason to be whatever some governmental official said it was.
bucolic_frolic
(55,143 posts)It's a special kind of lawsuit, one to disregard election outcomes in a democracy.
I would argue it's an attempted theft of property rights, because voters do have the right to vote and the right to have their vote counted. The TX lawsuit seeks to cancel an already exercised right.
My Pet Orangutan
(12,598 posts)It cannot be an act of sedition to file a legal case, in a U.S court, to obtain a ruling by SCOTUS, on the operation of the Constitution.
Tommymac
(7,334 posts)
RAB910
(4,030 posts)there are half a dozen that will attack you and claim what the Republicans did was legal and ethical
they love that those elected officials violated their oaths, demanded that the Supreme Court violate the Constitution to appoint the loser of the last election as President and use lies to justify their seditious demands
Tommymac
(7,334 posts)Everyone has an opinion. Those that voice it too loudly or too often show what they are whether they realize it or not. They shoot themselves in the foot.
Been around here for 16 years off and on so I know the territory.
If they keep up I put them on ignore. Life is too short.
But Thanks for caring!
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)orangecrush
(30,261 posts)CottonBear
(21,615 posts)He refuses to meet with his constituents who live in the biggest city in the district because the city is blue and progressive with a large population of black and brown people. He doesn’t even have an office in the city. He definitely doesn’t represent all of the people in the 10th district.
BlueWavePsych
(3,336 posts)
avebury
(11,197 posts)problem invoking the 14th Amendment.
onetexan
(13,913 posts)Make em squirm & stick that needle in deep and painful.
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)
stillcool
(34,407 posts)even if it's just cat-nip to make 'the base' happy. I always hear about 'the base', but it's never us. Even when we protest in astronomical numbers. Nothing Trump does matters, and nothing we do matters. We have spaghetti. We can throw it against the wall. I wonder how many lawsuits Democrats could get away with. Maybe we should find out.
jalan48
(14,914 posts)democracy. His proposal doesn't need to be successful, it's about messaging and labeling Republicans in a negative manner.
BadGimp
(4,109 posts)But the exercise should make democracy stronger. Democracy is clearly damaged and weaker as a result of the #GOPsurrender imo.
NJCher
(43,165 posts)Please note: upthread is a link to the same story from Yahoo News. No snips. Here are snips and link to original source:
https://theweek.com/articles/954673/constitution-answer-seditious-members-congress
snip
The Constitution, as goofy and jerry-rigged as it is, stipulates that insurrectionists who violate their oath are not allowed to serve in Congress. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, written to exclude Confederate Civil War traitors, says that "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress … who … having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same[.]" How the Supreme Court ruled, or whether Republicans actually believe their lunatic claims, is irrelevant. It's still insurrection even if it doesn't work out.
Democrats would have every right, both under the Constitution and under the principle of popular sovereignty outlined in the Declaration of Independence, to convene a traitor-free Congress (also including similar acts committed by Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, David Perdue, Kelly Loeffler, and others), and pass such laws as would be necessary to preserve the American republic. That might include a national popular vote to decide the presidency, ironclad voting rights protections, a ban on gerrymandering either national or state district boundaries, full representation for the citizens of D.C. and Puerto Rico, regulations on internet platforms that are inflaming violent political extremism, a clear legal framework for the transfer of power that ends the lame duck period, and so on. States would be forced to agree to these measures before they can replace their traitorous representatives and senators. If the Supreme Court objects, more pro-democracy justices can be added.
This wouldn't be the first time such a thing has happened, either. Immediately after the Civil War, the Radical Republican Congress refused to seat delegations from the former rebellious states until they were satisfied with the progress of Reconstruction. Southern states were forced to ratify the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments — which guaranteed due process and universal male suffrage — before their congressional delegations would be seated. (As a consequence, those delegations included numerous Black representatives, until Reconstruction was overthrown.)
It is virtually impossible to imagine the ancient, timid fossils that run the Democratic Party even considering this kind of thing (though remarkably, Rep. Bill Pascrell of New Jersey has) because it would require courage, vision, and honestly reckoning with the parlous state of the nation. It would not be illegal, but it would be a step beyond narrow legal proceduralism and into the uncharted waters of aggressive political innovation and raw will-to-power. It could conceivably touch off armed unrest in several states.
snip
ripcord
(5,553 posts)Do you even understand the definition of treason?
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
NJCher
(43,165 posts)frivolous lawsuit
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)It's stupid, dunderheaded, counterproductive, and wasteful, that is absolutely true. But it's by no means treasonous.
NJCher
(43,165 posts)That I have to connect those dots for you. However, I will do so tomorrow when I am on my computer instead of this iPad.
Jedi Guy
(3,477 posts)RAB910
(4,030 posts)and ethical. If you disagree with them be prepared to be insulted with Trump-like childish insults
In the end, there was nothing legal or ethical for elected officials to betray their oaths of office by demanding the Supreme Court violate the Constitution and appoint the man who lost the election President
Worse, these same elected officials used lies to justify their seditious demands
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)dware
(18,060 posts)none of us, on another thread, including the attorneys on this board, said it was ethical, all we said was it was legal for them to file amicus briefs in support of TX.
Several attorney's here, including StarfishSaver, onenote, etc. have tried several times to explain what the law is to no avail.
cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)Back to the topic at hand what actions if any are there actually for the House Democrats to express their displeasure for the unethical conduct that the Republicans displayed?
dware
(18,060 posts)they could try to expel them for the House, but that would require a 2/3rds vote, which is highly unlikely, or the House can censure them with just a simple majority vote, other than that...
What TX., Pissolini, those other state AG's and the House R's that filed amicus brief supporting TX was highly unethical, but there was no illegality involved by going through the courts system, which, BTW, ruled unanimously against the lawsuit.
MustLoveBeagles
(16,409 posts)dware
(18,060 posts)although I doubt that it will matter to these assholes, they have no shame and see nothing unethical or divisive with what they did.
I just cannot wrap my head around the stupidity of almost half the voting block in this country.
MustLoveBeagles
(16,409 posts)But it will be on the record. I wish there was more that the Democrats could legally do but unfortunately there's not. I don't want our side to go off half cocked and make fools of ourselves and thus hand the right a talking point. I'm content to let the Repukes keep shooting themselves in the foot.
I'm also stunned by the level of stupid in this country. I thought it was only 25%-35%. I can't explain it.
58Sunliner
(6,331 posts)It's legal to file doesn't mean much.
dware
(18,060 posts)bluestarone
(22,179 posts)The ATTORNEYS HERE!! We have the BEST legal people HERE!!! 
dware
(18,060 posts)These past few months, with the invaluable assistance of these legal eagles, I have learned so much about how our elections work, how lawsuits are filed, etc.
bluestarone
(22,179 posts)Seems like LOTS more to learn too. I look forward to the next four years. Joe and Kamala will def. have their hands full. What a four years it's gonna be. Wouldn't want to be anyplace else except HERE!!!!!
onenote
(46,142 posts)One can be appalled at what Trump and the Republicans did and still understand that Congress has no power under the Constitution to exclude these duly elected members of Congress from taking their seats. If Congress wants to expel them after they have been seated--which requires a 2/3 vote and thus isn't going to happen -- they certainly can try.
Censuring them may be toothless, but it only requires a majority and it would be immune from Constitutional challenge.
DBoon
(24,988 posts)but petitioning to overturn legal elections by hoping justices ignore case law and the constitution in favor of loyalty to a wanna-be autocrat is very, very unethical.
It is unethical to the point of evil.
Marthe48
(23,175 posts)He's read the Constitution of the U.S.A. and has interpreted a section in a flexible manner
Contrasts sharply with r's just making s**t up as they blather.
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)onenote
(46,142 posts)because his undergraduate degree in journalism and masters degree in philosophy clearly has not given him an understanding of Supreme Court precedent and Constitutional history.
While I appreciate and understand the desire to strike back at the Republicans who embarrassed themselves and the country by signing onto a brief supporting Texas' ludicrous lawsuit, that doesn't mean we can ignore clear Supreme Court precedent (Powell v McCormack) limiting the grounds on which Congress can exclude a duly elected member to a failure to meet the standing qualifications in the Constitution (age, residency, citizenship). Congress still could expel members after they were seated -- but it would take a 2/3 vote. And they can censure members based on a majority vote.
As for the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of that amendment specifically was intended to address former supporters of the Confederacy in the Civil War. To the extent that it could apply to any other situation (unclear), it would have go be a situation comparable to that presented by the hostilities associated with the Civil War -- not filing a brief in the Supreme Court.
pbmus
(13,141 posts) cstanleytech
(28,473 posts)qualify as even coming close to leading or engaging in an insurrection.
malthaussen
(18,572 posts)I would prefer to live in a country where grandstanding, tit-for-tat displays in Congress are discouraged, not encouraged.
-- Mal
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)58Sunliner
(6,331 posts)malthaussen
(18,572 posts)... distorting a law to make political capital seems to smell the same no matter who is doing it.
I can understand the good Representative's being appalled at the conduct of his colleagues, and I can imagine his dismay that there seems to be no means of relief for said conduct. Because who would have imagined representatives of the US government acting in such a brazen, undemocratic manner?
Perhaps rather than trying to fit a law to suit the circumstances, the Representative should propose legislation that will make such conduct in future clearly actionable. If he seriously wants relief, and is not just trying to polish his own apple.
-- Mal
58Sunliner
(6,331 posts)
Jazz Jon
(159 posts)These Republicans are traitors. What they have done is in the extreme. Democrats should explore every avenue to sanction, punish, limit or exclude them from participating in government. Sadly, the leaders of our party will say that we should "make up" with Republicans, even though Republicans would never ever, never have, and never will, offer the same consideration. Our party has not learned from experience at any point in our country's history. Maybe just venting here....
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)Ligyron
(8,006 posts)Make them and their brain dead supporters think.
58Sunliner
(6,331 posts)They have beating the drums for their"base" to foment violence and division. Not an accident. They have been planning this bs for a long time now.
KS Toronado
(23,727 posts)Make them look small in the eyes of the voters.
housecat
(3,138 posts)If there is any chance of Democrats losing this, then try something else. Just make sure the issue is out there for everyone to see. Something like "there's no such thing as bad publicity." Democrats tend to overthink, but this is one we should at least publicize, because the 14th Amendment isn't a household word
perdita9
(1,352 posts)If not, Republicans will only become more emboldened in their attack on our country and its freedoms
dware
(18,060 posts)but that price has to be within the law and the House rules and regs,, not what some here thinks should be paid.
IOW, what some here think and what the law says are 2 different things.
JI7
(93,617 posts)What Democrats do or say doesn't matter since the voters in those places hate most Democrats.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)
world wide wally
(21,836 posts)When the GOP brings it to the Supreme Court, they will have to explain their own ruling on this decision.
Aussie105
(7,921 posts)The news needs to get out there.
A lot of Repub thinkers probably think the supreme court let them down, and would have no problem with the opposite outcome.
'Almost got there' is Trump's attitude, and he projects the victim thing about stolen elections, supreme court letting him down, etc.
At one level, it was vexatious litigation aimed at keeping Repub thinkers on the boil. That perception of rage and victimhood will persist.
At a deeper level, it was a serious threat to the Constitution.
Democrats need to make a big fuss about this and reverse that thinking. Point out how un-American the whole thing is, how undemocratic, and an immoral attempt to grab power no matter what.
How Democrats get that message out there is up to them, but it needs to be done.
Response to Tom Yossarian Joad (Original post)
geralmar This message was self-deleted by its author.
denbot
(9,950 posts)Placing a call to Ted Lui’s office to ask him to get on this!
Tarc
(10,601 posts)Stop upvoting this baseless claim to the front page.
Filing a friend of the court brief for the Texas lawsuit, as asinine and ridiculous the premise of the lawsuit may be, is not sedition. We cannot unseat members of the ouse, absent a 2/3rd vote for expulsion.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)and trumps only play left is the disruption of the Congressional vote of the EC outcome. Start talking about sedition until that vote.
Pelosi needs offer commentary even if it's only "we are reviewing" all legal options at our disposal.
ouija
(465 posts)There are no rules.
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)People are seriously proposing that 1/4 of the duly-elected members of the US House should be denied their seats?
If that happened, we would have achieved a dismantling of the American Republic that the most crazed Trump/QAnon fanatic could have ever imagined.
Arne
(3,609 posts)ffr
(23,399 posts)If it's even barely legal, DO IT!
DO IT NOW!
You have the support of 82 million voters that are tired of eating shit. It's time to start shoveling the shit the other way!
Karma13612
(4,982 posts)Seats?
Is that allowed?
I have read the various comments here and see that the 14 Amendment can’t be applied because it wasn’t actually sedition.
But, censure alone seems toothless. And the voting public will see once again that the Democrats play by the rules (a good thing) but appear weak and cowardly.
The Democratic party really needs to hire a very high-powered PR firm and fix their messaging ASAP. Being the good guys these days just means we get wedgies, toilet flushes (heads in the toilet I guess), and our lunches stolen every day.
beachbumbob
(9,263 posts)starts with repercussions against the GOP
onenote
(46,142 posts)We can't save democracy from an electorate that doesn't want to be saved.
Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)The court spectacle of their seditious conspiracy would be enlightening.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)The only real harm that it has done as I perceive it is that it further undermines their constituencies respect for our Democratic Republic. It is an insult to those who gave their time and energy to running a fair and impartial election. That includes Republican, Democrats and and those of other parties. It is startling that so many Republican Representatives chose to put their support behind what many, being attorneys, knew was a frivolous stunt that would never be considered by the Supreme Court. Their stupid stunt will be thrown up in their face by their opponents who will charge them with attempting to overthrow an election. I do think that they will regret their vain attempt to ingrate themselves to their constituencies. It appears, however, contemptable we may regard it, it was not illegal. It is just more damn stupid theater that we have been suffered to endure for the last four long, long years.
sigpooie
(106 posts)Everytime they turn up the crazy, we find out they stole something else. The 126 and 17 ags have been planning this move since feb . Let that sink in ..please work to win Georgia seats. This is the only path to their destruction. Someone should also start publishing companies and individual donors of these bastards. We need to stop the supply lines quickly. This is sedition and their attemps are weak and show that they are very selfish uneducated idiots.
SierraPinecone
(16 posts)So, the 2nd Amendment addresses a time when you can have arms for protection - when rifles were not machine guns - but it's now interpreted to be a right to have multiple rapid fire weapons made for war. I get that they don't recognize PE Biden, voted in by the majority of the country and that the lawsuits are not illegal, but I don't understand why we cannot sanction or refuse to seat elected officials who do not recognize that PE Biden won and will be #46.
Hotler
(13,747 posts)There should be 230± democratic congress critters signing on to this and calling for repug heads Dems should be all over the news and Nancy should be pissed enough to be spiting bullets. Where is the fight and anger.