On the very day Republicans read the Constitution, two House Republicans violate it

Rana said:
It has never happened before, so it should be interesting to see how they proceed! Will see how Pelosi handles this!
Click to expand...
Now that is BS. This has happened before. This is a common FNG mistake. They simply take the oath individually and any vote they participated in that was "won" by one vote would have to be retaken.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Where does the Constitution say that the serve under oath. Please quote it.




I disagree.
Click to expand...
Sorry, should have said "shall be bound by" the past tense usage of the word requires that the oath or affirmation be taken before they serve else they are not "bound" at that point they've yet to be "bound".

And I understand that you "disagree" but it is what is. They could vote at any moment to change it so that they didn't all have to be there, just present via closed circuit TV...

The Rules of Congress can change by simply voting in rule changes, the constitution not so much it takes a 2/3 vote ratification by 3/4 of the states etc., it isn't a violation of the constitution to violate the rules of Congress, it never has been and never will be.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Next time you have a trial when you put your second witness on the stand tell the judge that she was following along in the hallway when the first witness was sworn in so no oath is necessary.

Yes, it says oath or affirmation. Tell me what you think an oath or affirmation is and how in the late 18th century such oaths and affirmations were administered if by some process other than in person by an individual authorized to administer the oath.
Click to expand...

apples/oranges and its cute how you keep desperately avoiding the constitution....

court rules specifically detail how you are to be sworn in, the constitution does not...you can keep trying, but you will continue to fail and your false analogies only make things worse for you
 
Damocles said:
Sorry, should have said "shall be bound by" the past tense usage of the word requires that the oath or affirmation be taken before they serve else they are not "bound" at that point they've yet to be "bound".
Click to expand...

It just says that they shall be bound, not that they shall be bound by oath or affirmation before they serve. By contrast, Article II makes it plain that the President must take the oath of office prior to serving: Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Given the framers made clear that the president must be bound by the oath of office prior to serving but did not do the same thing for members of Congress, taking of the oath is not a constitutional prerequisite to service at all. So I guess I agree with you that there is no constitutional violation here, but for different reasons.


Damocles said:
And I understand that you "disagree" but it is what is. They could vote at any moment to change it so that they didn't all have to be there, just present via closed circuit TV...
Click to expand...

I disagree that taking the oath by closed circuit TV is appropriate. That's just not how oaths are administered.


Damocles said:
The Rules of Congress can change by simply voting in rule changes, the constitution not so much it takes a 2/3 vote ratification by 3/4 of the states etc., it isn't a violation of the constitution to violate the rules of Congress, it never has been and never will be.
Click to expand...

And cucumbers taste better pickled.
 
Last edited:
Bfgrn said:
The action is now behind the scenes, as Speaker John Boehner tries to persuade House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to agree to a unanimous consent decree that would make all the work Sessions and Fitzpatrick did over the past day count retroactively.

I recommend that Minority Leader Pelosi not allow any retroactive acceptations of any business that was conducted with members that were not sworn in.
Click to expand...

I don't think that would be in the best interest for the nation or the Democrats, sour grapes don't leave a good taste in ones mouth.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Next time you have a trial when you put your second witness on the stand tell the judge that she was following along in the hallway when the first witness was sworn in so no oath is necessary.

Yes, it says oath or affirmation. Tell me what you think an oath or affirmation is and how in the late 18th century such oaths and affirmations were administered if by some process other than in person by an individual authorized to administer the oath.
Click to expand...

:good4u:
 
Damocles said:
Again that wouldn't be a violation of the constitution, simply the rules of the court. It's silly to confuse the two. I've seen some courts who just stand everybody up at the beginning have have everybody say "I do" afterward then remind them all throughout that they are "still under oath"...

I've seen others where everybody has to take it individually on the stand. It is what the Judge would accept, not a "constitution" violation.
Click to expand...

They still take it in person, and the two senators would have been okay had they made arrangements to be missing from the swearing in, but they didn't.
 
Damocles said:
Now that is BS. This has happened before. This is a common FNG mistake. They simply take the oath individually and any vote they participated in that was "won" by one vote would have to be retaken.
Click to expand...

It hasn't happened that they thought they were sworn in, when they weren't and went to committee and cast votes, that was what I was referring to, not the being sworn in later, so frickin chill the hell out, Damo.
 
did the entire congress violate the constitution?

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

did they by law appoint a different day?
 
Yurt said:
did the entire congress violate the constitution?

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

did they by law appoint a different day?
Click to expand...


Yes, they did. See Amendment 20.
 
Yurt said:
did the entire congress violate the constitution?

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

did they by law appoint a different day?
Click to expand...
Yes, they actually did, a long time ago. The law now reads the third work day of January, rather than the calendar date.
 
Rana said:
I don't think that would be in the best interest for the nation or the Democrats, sour grapes don't leave a good taste in ones mouth.
Click to expand...

So you want to expedite their attempt to repeal the health care bill, the food safety bill, the Wall Street reform bill???
 
Rana said:
They tried to come and play without being properly sworn in, I think not being sworn in is in violation of the laws that were set forth.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha, look at the righties rushing to the defense. Remember when John Roberts flubbed Obama's swearing-in, and how the right was saying he wasn't duly sworn? Then they launched another conspiracy theory when Obama took the oath again in private.
 
christiefan915 said:
Ha ha ha, look at the righties rushing to the defense. Remember when John Roberts flubbed Obama's swearing-in, and how the right was saying he wasn't duly sworn? Then they launched another conspiracy theory when Obama took the oath again in private.
Click to expand...
Pinheads lapping us some idiot bloggers nonsense....it is funny....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top