4329
4330

There’s just no way this would possibly work.

I mean, the constitution very clearly lays out the requirements for expelling members of Congress. It specifically says that you need a 2/3rds majority vote.
Article 1, section 5:

“Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.”

Given the clarity by which they stated this requirement, there’s just no way that you’re going to get away with expelling members with a simple majority. It would be, obviously, at odds with the requirements laid out clearly in the Constitution.

And really, this is the way it should be. The majority in Congress should not be able to simply expel members of the minority party at will.

4331

They can be auto-expelled with a conviction under the acts I listed above, at least the first one. That’s how you do it without 2/3rds vote, but you’d need a jury of 12 to convict.

4332

If they have a 2/3rds majority, they can remove anyone from office they want, for any reason they want, whatsoever. If they don’t have a 2/3rds majority…they can’t. This particular proposal changes those basic facts in no way whatsoever.

4333

Ya, this involves them actually going through a jury trial, and that’s fine I guess.

4334

Yeah, the unintended consequence here — allowing a simple majority vote to result in expulsion of office — is pretty terrifying and would certainly lead to abuse.

4335

They voted to throw out the EC votes of two different states purely because those states voted in a way they didn’t like. Having the legal ability to object to the votes of a state isn’t the same as actually doing so in support of an insurrectionist movement. I agree that just voting “yes” (or “no”) on a measure in the House shouldn’t be grounds for expulsion, but this was them exercising a power they have for clearly corrupt reasons and it lead to people trying to take over the seat of government.

People who presented or co-signed the objection, on the basis of completely disproven lies, in the face of an insurrection on their behalf, should really be arrested and charged with sedition.

4336

Here’s the link to the WaPo interview with Sund. @Leyla_Johnson mentioned it previously in this thread, I recently read it and had some thoughts.

He’s shifting the blame to his superiors, the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate, Paul Irving and Michael Stenger (both of whom have also resigned). These two Sergeants are elected by Congress, and along with the Architect of the Capitol form the board which appoints the Capitol Police Chief. The Capitol Police Chief reports directly to this board.

In his first interview since pro-Trump rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol last week, Sund, who has since resigned his post, said his supervisors were reluctant to take formal steps to put the Guard on call even as police intelligence suggested that the crowd President Trump had invited to Washington to protest his defeat probably would be much larger than earlier demonstrations.

House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he wasn’t comfortable with the “optics” of formally declaring an emergency ahead of the demonstration, Sund said. Meanwhile, Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger suggested that Sund should informally seek out his Guard contacts, asking them to “lean forward” and be on alert in case Capitol Police needed their help.

On the way home that evening, Sund did as Stenger suggested, calling Maj. Gen. William J. Walker, the head of the 1,000-member D.C. National Guard, to tell him that he might call on him for help. “If we can get you leaning forward,” Sund said, “how long do you think it would take to get us assistance?”

Walker said he thought he could send 125 personnel fairly quickly. Over the weekend, Sund had also conferred with D.C. Police Chief Robert J. Contee III, who also had offered to lend a hand if trouble arose.

On Tuesday, Sund said he briefed Irving and Stenger, who said that backup seemed sufficient.

Minutes later, aides to the top congressional leaders were called to Stenger’s office for an update on the situation — and were infuriated to learn that the sergeants at arms had not yet called in the National Guard or any other reinforcements, as was their responsibility to do without seeking approval from leaders.

“What do you mean that there’s no National Guard, that there’s no reinforcements coming?” aides demanded to know. “Why haven’t you ordered them, why aren’t they already here?”

The National Guard is not an emergency response force, and all of the troops required to protect the Capitol should have already been authorized in advance. While the Capitol was being breached, the newly activated National Guard troops literally had to leave their day jobs and head to the armory before they could go to the Capitol.

This interview certainly paints the Sergeants in a bad light, and I’m glad they’re out, but I still take issue with Sund based on what I read in this earlier WaPo article:

Before Congress met on Jan. 6 to formalize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund had assured House and Senate members that his force of 2,000 officers could handle the large expected crowds, according to multiple people who spoke with Sund in the days leading up to the siege.

Lofgren asked whether Capitol police had enough officers to handle the capacity, and if they had the National Guard on standby and available to quickly help if needed.

Sund insisted, yes, they had both bases covered, Lofgren said. Later, in a call with Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), he repeated those assertions, Ryan said.

In fact, three days earlier, Capitol police had told the Pentagon that it was not requesting National Guard support for the event, according to defense officials. And when masses of Trump supporters began pushing against the limited barricades around the Capitol, the agency’s officers were rapidly overrun.

(according to his new account, Sund was apparently referring to a group of 125 Guardsmen who were “leaning forward”, not even activated in advance)

4337

The disparity between those two checks is immediately obvious; indeed, the precise argument used by some to avoid convicting Trump was to let the voters decide. Sauce for the gander, right? If the voters are sufficient means to remove a member of Congress from office, they are sufficient means to remove the President from office. Why not?

People who cast votes based on lies in order to overcome a free and fair election and install a would-be insurrectionist instead ought not to be members of the legislature, and I think that ought to be obvious.

4338

The 14th amendment is part of the constitution also. The requirements you cite are for expelling members in general, but there is a different procedure for barring insurrectionists from office.

4339

Agree. The problem seems to lie in how you establish someone is an insurrectionist. That probably wasn’t much of a challenge when the amendment was passed — it was aimed at barring the politicians and military officers who betrayed the Union — but I think today you’re going to need some kind of finding of fact from a court.

4340

From all the photos I’ve seen I wonder what actual number was deployed that day? Hell it looks like there were maybe 200 cops protecting the entire capital that day.

4341

Let us just imagine for a moment that you are correct, and that the implication is that the majority of Congress can simply declare anyone as having committed insurrection, without any sort of court trial, and then expel them from Congress.

Do you see the problem?

4342

Thing is, the 14th Amendment doesn’t actually say this, which is why there’s so much speculation going around. The more I think about it, the more I think this type of “simple majority expulsion” is potentially dangerous and sets a bad precedent, but otoh, it may also be legally viable in the short run. But on the OTHER otoh, “short run legal viability” may lead us to places we don’t want to go. We live in interesting times.

4343

Well, as Sharpe pointed out, the House has that power. It’s possible courts would step in and issue an injunction against suspending members on that basis, but it also might matter whether or not the court felt the members affected were likely to prevail in a court case.

I mean, I agree that if Dems do this with Dem-only support, it opens Pandora’s box and the GOP will have zero qualms about doing it on the slightest of pretext. One would hope that completely fabricated charges would land differently with the courts than these very clear ones, but it is a worrisome thing to rely on. That said, sometimes the circumstance are dire enough that it requires action, and then you also need to act prevent future abuse.

Anyway, I don’t think 1/3 of the House should be expelled on a strict party-line vote. But I do think that if a significant number of GOP reps (say at least double digits) were on board to expel the leaders of that movement by finding them guilty of insurrection and to censure the rest for going along with it, that would be an appropriate response. Still short of what they deserve.

4344

Sure, I agree it doesn’t say that. Arguably it doesn’t say that because the people who passed it knew exactly who they were talking about.

But I think if e.g. the House tries to declare someone an insurrectionist via a simple majority vote, then declare them expelled on that basis, a court is going to block that; and the court should block it IMO.

Is that what Sharpe says? I read him as saying that nobody really knows what the amendment means in terms of the House’s power.

Edit: I don’t think anyone can reasonably argue that the intent of the amendment was to empower a party with a simple majority to expel all the members of the opposition any time they wanted to.

4345

I feel like there is a difference between doing something like what Trump did, and actively encouraging insurrection, and simply making a vote in congress that says you challenge the EC vote.

The latter is an example of bad judgement that I personally would consider disqualifying (in that I would never vote for that person again), but I do not believe that it would rise to a charge of sedition.

Now, some of the members did stuff that DOES rise to that level, and those people should be expelled… but I think it should be done via 2/3rds vote.

4346

If that problem is a problem it doesn’t matter whether Dems do it now or not. The GOP will do it if they can. The real issue is the extent of bi-partisan support for you doing it now, what you do during the period when members are suspended / not replaced, and whether you want the precedent of expelling insurrectionists or of not punishing them at all.

4347

He said they have power to issue a finding of fact. That was all I was referring to

4348

Right, they can issue a finding of fact but is that enough to hold up as a basis for exclusion under the 14th Amendment? I have NO idea.