Santos Expelled from House

[Blaster]

It takes a little bit of corruption out of the monkey cage that is Congress.

Congress is still corrupt so this accomplishes nothing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your bloviation exposes you for the simpleton you are.

We know there is a process. Ffs, even a dope like you figured that much out.

Now answer the question:

Beyond the 2/3rds supermajority vote requirement, is the authority of each house to expel its own members unlimited?

This should require a simple yes or no. But I doubt you’re up to that, dainty.

Section. 5.​

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

"The U.S. Supreme Court, in Powell v. McCormack (1969), limited the powers of the Congress to refuse to seat an elected member to when the individual does not meet the specific constitutional requirements of age, citizenship or residency." - Wikipedia entry

No one has challenged the House rules here. Merely shouting some nonsense about 'due process' does not make the shout itself a credible or valid legal argument.

homework 4 BackatitAgain: Unseated members of the United States Congress - Wikipedia :homework

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Congress is still corrupt so this accomplishes nothing.

Then they reflect perfectly the corrupt populace you are part of. Happy?

 

[BackAgain]

That doesn’t make the House rules necessarily Constitutional.

Who has ever challenged the constitutionality of the House rule on expulsion?

Section 5: Powers and Duties of Congress​

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Dante believes you assume he supports the Squad or others merely because they're Left? He doesn't. And Dante doesn't even support members merely because they're Democrats. That out of the way, your example is waaay out there. The House rules do not support expulsion for stating opinions.

Not sure what kind of fallacy to assign your nonsense to, but...

You’re a moron.

The CRS has demonstrated more concern over the topic than you can even grasp.

 

[Blaster]

Then they reflect perfectly the corrupt populace you are part of. Happy?

I usually vote for 3rd party candidates.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I usually vote for 3rd party candidates.

Your posts here help the argument for demanding a literacy test before being able to comment @ usmb

 

[BackAgain]

"The U.S. Supreme Court, in Powell v. McCormack (1969), limited the powers of the Congress to refuse to seat an elected member to when the individual does not meet the specific constitutional requirements of age, citizenship or residency." - Wikipedia entry

No one has challenged the House rules here. Merely shouting some nonsense about 'due process' does not make the shout itself a credible or valid legal argument.

Powell dealt with exclusion, not expulsion.

You're also too severely limited in your ability to “think.” Fortunately for you, I’m here to help.

There is always going to be a first case. Maybe this one doesn’t qualify. But at some point it is easily foreseeable that someone may challenge the authority of the House to expel a member on the basis of a complaint about a denial of minimal due process.

You keep ducking it. It’s obvious why. But that’s ok. I’ll just ask you again (if only to expose you again as the coward you are):

Is it your contention that the only thing needed to expel a sitting member of Congress is a 2/3rd supermajority vote?

Yes or no. Step right up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You’re a moron.

The CRS has demonstrated more concern over the topic than you can even grasp.

the Congressional Research Service?

Concerns? Okay. MEmbers have brought up concerns for them to look into. Any regarding Santos predate the Ethics session that expelled him. Some members with concerns changed minds after more time passed (your Rush to judgment fail), and a concern leads to a judgement that you mistakenly believe helps your case. Anyone with historical memory knows they'd most likely come down on the side for expelling Santos.

You don't only grasp at straws, you use them to build to deflect and deceive yourself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then don't keep embarrassing yourself.

Posts #166 and #167 extreme violation. It was not an error with copying -- it's purposeful.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Powell dealt with exclusion, not expulsion.

You're also too severely limited in your ability to “think.” Fortunately for you, I’m here to help.

There is always going to be a first case. Maybe this me doesn’t qualify. But at some point it is easily foreseeable that someone may challenge the authority of the House to expel a member on the basis of a complaint about a denial of minimal due process.

You keep ducking it. It’s obvious why. But that’s ok. I’ll just ask you again (if only to expose you again as the coward you are):

Is it your contention that the only thing needed to expel a sitting member of Congress is a 2/3rd supermajority vote?

Yes or no. Step right up.

It's about the authority of each house and it's enforcement of it's own rules. You questioned the constitutionality of the rules.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Powell dealt with exclusion, not expulsion.

You're also too severely limited in your ability to “think.” Fortunately for you, I’m here to help.

There is always going to be a first case. Maybe this me doesn’t qualify. But at some point it is easily foreseeable that someone may challenge the authority of the House to expel a member on the basis of a complaint about a denial of minimal due process.

You keep ducking it. It’s obvious why. But that’s ok. I’ll just ask you again (if only to expose you again as the coward you are):

Is it your contention that the only thing needed to expel a sitting member of Congress is a 2/3rd supermajority vote?

Yes or no. Step right up.

You people still don't get it. Just because somebody makes an argument political or legal, you all jump on board acting like it's valid and credible. You remind me of people who take an argument to a court and never get passed go -- thrown out before it gets presented.

Did Santos make a legal claim denying due process? I don't believe so. It was a political argument on the House floor. The same floor he has been proven to have lied from -- where he has been found to have been breaking rules. Breaking rules led to his expulsion.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Santos committed fraud just as Trump has.

With Trump, In civil court a Judge ruled in a summary judgement before the trial began. In a court of law, Trump was found guilty of committing fraud. The facts are not open to debate. Except in a Giuliani, There is no truth, Alternate Facts world.

There was no due process in this matter. You dolt.

The Ethics committee found Santos to have committed fraud while a member of Congress. Santos was afforded due process in the committee process. Santos refused to defend himself in the committee hearings. Santos like Mr. Trump has relied on political statements, rather than sound legal arguments.

 

[Orangecat]

Agreed. But does Schiff have pending criminal indictments? Can't expel someone just because you don't like them.

Pending indictments don’t mean shit when you live in a country that presumes innocence until proven guilty. Schaffer blatantly and repeatedly lied about the Russian collusion nonsense. You know it, I know it.

 

[Orangecat]

never get passed go --

It’s “past”, Dumpty.

 

[Orangecat]

Not even the GOP is onboard with that imbecilic nonsense you spout

I don’t speak for the GOP, Dumpty.
Take some advice from Elon and go fuck yourself.

 

[BluesLegend]

Runs? Ran. He lost bigly in 2020

Dem cheaters lost in 2020 and everyone knows it. You people are illegitimate.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Congress is still corrupt so this accomplishes nothing.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Pending indictments don’t mean shit when you live in a country that presumes innocence until proven guilty. Schaffer blatantly and repeatedly lied about the Russian collusion nonsense. You know it, I know it.

Who the fuck is Schaffer? How am I supposed to take you seriously when you can't even get the name Schiff right?

 

[eagle7-31]

My, my. George Santos becomes only the sixth member in history to be expelled from the House. It would seem the latest crop of GOP lawmakers have been scraped from the bottom of the barrel, so hopefully this is some sign of reforms to come within the chamber.

Indicted Republican lawmaker George Santos expelled from US House

Indicted Republican George Santos' brief career in the U.S. House of Representatives came to an end on Friday, when fellow lawmakers voted to expel him over criminal corruption charges and accusations of misspending campaign money.

www.reuters.com

Thoughts?

Now lets see if the Democrats clean up their act....oh pardon me Democrats do no wrong so long as they tow the looney left line.

 

[Lakhota]