Two House GOP's miss swearing in..violating Constitution

Two House Republicans Missed Swearing In While At A Fundraiser In The Capitol, Violating Constitution On Day It Was Read

WASHINGTON -- Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.

The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in because they were at a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitors Center. The pair watched the swearing-in on television from the Capitol Visitors Center with their hands raised.

"That wasn't planned. It just worked out that way," said Fitzpatrick at the time, according to local press on hand, which noted that he "happened to be introducing Texas Congressman Pete Sessions while glad-handing his supporters in the Capitol Visitor Center that he secured for them when the House swearing in began."

On Thursday, the Rules Committee adjourned because Sessions had made a motion to open proceedings to begin considering the GOP bill to repeal health care reform - an action that can only be taken by an official member of Congress. (Which he was NOT, because he had not been sworn in...)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/0 ... 05423.html


Well, I'm just speechless... Here their fellow political-theater participants were reading the Constitution, (which is estimated to have cost approximately $1.1 million in lost time and productivity), and in direct violation of it, they skip and go to a fundraiser?!?!?!?

I'm SHOCKED! I tell you...SHOCKED!

So in their first day on the job in power, the party that campaigned on fiscal responsibility and fealty to the Constitution have so far, spent over $1 million taking turns reading portions of the amended Constitution (They could have provided copies to each congressman for less than $50), wasted millions more because two Republican congressman illegally voted on matters without having taken their sworn oath to the Constitution so they could attend a fundraiser, and proposed legislation that would increase the deficit by over $230 billion. One can only imagine how their second day on the job will go.

Don't forget the Dems who were also reading Constitution.

Did any of them miss the oath because they were at fundraisers? Nah... Didn't think so.

Hey, if the GOP made it clear they were going hold up the work of the House to do it, it's not like the minority Dems could do much about it. Why not join in?

I'm pretty familiar with the Constitution, and while I can specifically recall the Constitution requiring the recitation of an oath for the President in Article II Section 1 prior to entering into the execution of his office, I can't recall the Constitution placing the elected members of Congress under a similar requirement. Can any of the partisans claiming that the Constitution has been violated supply me with the language in the Constitution that requires elected members of Congress swear an oath in the chambers prior to entering their office? I'm betting not. Article VI mentions that they shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, but nowhere does it state that they have to be on the floor of the chamber to take such an oath or affirmation prior to entering their office. The two representatives took the oath in the presence of each other and of other witnesses. The Constitution has been satisfied.

More hyperbole that is long on feigned outrage and short on relevant fact.............

I guess it's in the same part of the Constitution that provides for the "filibuster"? I don't remember seeing that in there either.

But I DO know that the GOP Majority-chairman of the committee abruptly canceled the meeting because their own member hadn't been sworn in.

Perhaps you could direct me to the place where filibusters and Senate-Holds are authorized?

As required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, Members of Congress shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner all take the oath of office on the first day of the new Congress, immediately after the House has elected its Speaker. The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Representatives elected in special elections during the course of a Congress generally take the oath of office on the floor of the House Chamber when the Clerk of the House has received a formal notice of the new Member's election or appointment from State government authorities. On rare occasions, because of illness or other circumstances, a Member-elect has been authorized to take the oath of office at a place other than the House. In those circumstances, the Clerk of the House sees to the proper administration of the oath.

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/memberfaq.html

First off, that is a law made by Congress to implement the Constitution. That oath, and the procedure for administering it, appear nowhere in the document. And, as noted, the oath is spoken after the Speaker of the House has been elected, which means.........drum roll please............that the elected members of the House of Representatives actually enter into their offices and participate in the business of Congress before they take their oath. Imagine my surprise that Huffpo and the progressive partisans are ignorant of the Constitution once again........

LadyJazzer wrote: I guess it's in the same part of the Constitution that provides for the "filibuster"? I don't remember seeing that in there either.

Perhaps you could direct me to the place where filibusters and Senate-Holds are authorized?

Certainly. It will be found in Article I Section 5 Paragraph 2. "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.

You know, I don't give sh*t what you think the Constitution's rules are surrounding the administration of the oath. In PRACTICE, two of the REPUBLICAN congressmen didn't take it---The REPUBLICAN Chair of the committee had to abruptly cancel the meeting because they weren't sworn in. If you think it's inconsequential, why don't you call up the chairman and tell him how ill-informed he is.

And in the meantime, why don't you find someone else to play your mental-masturbation games with.