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

PrintSmith wrote:

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.

Funny, but I don't see the word "filibuster" there... Only that it can "determine the rules"...

Perhaps the House of Representatives determined that the OATH MUST BE ADMINISTERED before House members may participate in hearings? I suppose then, THAT would explain why the Republican Chairman shut down the meeting.

LadyJazzer wrote: 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.

Not my faulty that you have no frigging idea of what you are talking about and rely instead upon a group of similarly ignorant partisans who consistently engage their mouths without having their brain fired up my friend. It's OK that you are wrong, and I completely understand why you are upset with yourself for taking the word of someone else and illuminating both their and your ignorance in the process. But that isn't my fault, it is yours. The fact of the matter is that while it is the normal practice for the Speaker to administer the oath, neither the law nor the Constitution require the oath be administered by the Speaker of the House on the first day of the new Congress and there is nothing in the Constitution about a reelected member not being bound by the same oath they took previously. Only the President is required by the Constitution to take a specific oath or affirmation prior to entering the office. You and Huffpo are simply wrong. It's OK, it happens to everyone from time to time. Doesn't make you a bad person, it simply makes you WRONG!

Done correctly or not, I still think that missing your swearing in for a FUNDRAISER on the second day of the new congress is nothing to defend. You'd think that with all that is on the line, these guys would do what ever it took to not give the appearance of not giving a sh** and with all of the mudslinging that has been going on, I'd think that the right would be pissed that these two guys threw up a HUGE lob for the media and the left to blow up.

So, if "filibuster" is covered under: "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", then that means if the House and/or Senate have determined that until and unless you take the oath, then you may not participate in the activities, then I guess that explains why the Chairman shut down the meeting....It obviously doesn't need to be explicitly in the Constitution if it's been determined in the Rules.

There is no provision in the Constitution for a remote swearing-in by television. On Thursday, Fitzpatrick was one of the members who read the Constitution from the dais. He would have been on hand to here the section he violated read aloud: "Article VI, Paragraph 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

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.

Emily Davis, a spokeswoman for Sessions, said that Sessions rectified the situation Thursday afternoon, after it came to his attention that he had not been properly sworn in. "During the swearing in of the 112th Congress, Congressman Sessions stated the oath publicly in the Capitol but was not on the House floor. To ensure that all constitutional and House requirements are fulfilled, Congressman Sessions officially took the oath of office this afternoon from the House floor. Public records and votes will be adjusted accordingly," she said.

Gee, I guess if I was "wrong" then Sessions wouldn't have worried about whether he was "properly sworn in", and that "To ensure that all constitutional and House requirements are fulfilled, he [Congressman Sessions] officially took the oath of office this afternoon from the House floor."

Nah, he could have just told them to "stuff it" because PS said so.

UPDATE: Fitzpatrick spokesman Darren Smith insists that the event was not a fundraiser. "Some people paid $30 to cover the cost of bus transportation to Washington. The reception was open to anyone who showed up, including over a hundred people who drove down on their own," he said of the 500-person event.

A document outlining official allowable uses of Capitol Visitor Center space confirms that fundraisers are off limits. "Visitor Center space may not be used for any fund-raising purpose," it reads on page four, with the underlining in the original.

The title of the event -- "Mike Fitzpatrick's Swearing In Celebration" -- makes it clear that the event in question is the celebration of the swearing-in at the Capitol, not the bus trip. The invitation asks for a minimum of $30 but allows the contributor to give more. "Federal Law requires us to report the name, mailing address, occupation, and name of employer for each individual whose contributions aggregate in excess of $200 in an election cycle," reads the invite, indicating that it was indeed a campaign event.

"Visitor Center space may not be used for political activities, including political campaign, political party, or political action committee activities," reads the rules.

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: 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.

Not my faulty that you have no frigging idea of what you are talking about and rely instead upon a group of similarly ignorant partisans who consistently engage their mouths without having their brain fired up my friend. It's OK that you are wrong, and I completely understand why you are upset with yourself for taking the word of someone else and illuminating both their and your ignorance in the process. But that isn't my fault, it is yours. The fact of the matter is that while it is the normal practice for the Speaker to administer the oath, neither the law nor the Constitution require the oath be administered by the Speaker of the House on the first day of the new Congress and there is nothing in the Constitution about a reelected member not being bound by the same oath they took previously. Only the President is required by the Constitution to take a specific oath or affirmation prior to entering the office. You and Huffpo are simply wrong. It's OK, it happens to everyone from time to time. Doesn't make you a bad person, it simply makes you WRONG!

Actually it is you who is dead wrong, Printsmith. According to Article 6 of the US Constitution:
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.