You can fake it and then use the fact that you weren't really sworn in as an excuse, later when you violate ethnic laws, well, I wasn't really a Senator! I was never sworn in to office legally! My name wasn't in the book!
On the very day Republicans read the Constitution, two House Republicans violate it
- Thread starter Bfgrn
- Start date
You can fake it and then use the fact that you weren't really sworn in as an excuse, later when you violate ethnic laws, well, I wasn't really a Senator! I was never sworn in to office legally! My name wasn't in the book!
I'm saying that the constitution has no requirement as to how the oath will be administered. If you read it differently cite the text. Pedanticism aside, they should have informed him they weren't there and had the oath administered individually before making votes, but that is Congressional rules, not "constitution", violations.
Bfgrn
New member
Why don't you READ the linked article before you open your pie hole?
Missing the 'ceremony' is not a violation. Voting as a sworn in member before actually being sworn in IS a violation.
From the linked article:
Freshly-minted House Rules Committee chair David Dreier (R-CA) had to recess hearings on repealing the health care law after he learned that Sessions, a member of the committee, was not in fact a Constitutionally-valid member of the 112th Congress. Sessions had been casting votes all day like the duly-sworn members on the committee.
Dreier spokesperson Jo Maney told TPM that she "didn't know it happened" that Sessions wasn't sworn in, but after Dreier found out about it, he recessed the hearing to sort out the mess.
cawacko
Well-known member
Looks like they did violate the constitution. What do you recommend happen?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
this is a direct quote right in your OP:
violated the Constitution by missing the ceremony
i suggest YOU need to read your own link
Bfgrn
New member
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.
Bfgrn
New member
this is a direct quote right in your OP:
violated the Constitution by missing the ceremony
i suggest YOU need to read your own link
Only the anal retentive need an explanation...
So I gave you one...
Implicit in the concept of an oath is the requirement that it be administered by and in the presence of a person authorized to administer the particular oath.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you claimed the article did not say that, i show where it said exactly that and you can't admit you're wrong...
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
please cite that in the constitution....and it says oath or affirmation
it does not say where or when or how
keep up the desperate spin though, its great watching you lefties make a big deal out of this
Right. Hence, because of that they should have told them they weren't there and taken the Oath individually. However, it isn't a violation of the constitution, as there is no requirement as to how the oath is administered, that is a rules violation, not a "constitution" violation. Unless you can point to that requirement, you really are just a pedantic attempting to create a mountain out of a molehill.
I'm sure that if it has legs the Ds running against these two will gladly use it in their ads. Otherwise it's just an interesting subject. Did they "violate the constitution"? Not in spirit. They just didn't know the rules that applied to them. FNGs are often ignorant of how things have to be in a bureaucracy.
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.
In reality, the Constitution doesn't say when members of Congress have to take the oath so I guess it'd be cool for the oath to be administered to everyone on the last day of Congress instead of the first.
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.
It has never happened before, so it should be interesting to see how they proceed! Will see how Pelosi handles this!
I'm not sure I follow your comment. My first comment was for illustrative purposes only, in that the second witness has not taken any oath or affirmation by following along in the hallway. Likewise, these two guys did not take any oath or affirmation by following along on TV. I'm not confusing the two. I was merely using an example that Yurt may have some familiarity with to make a point on a different matter. Dig?
Not really, it says that they serve under the Oath which cannot be done without taking it beforehand. While it says that, it doesn't say who has to give it, how they have to take it, just that it must be done before they serve.
The Constitution gave them power to make the rules. They did. These people should have taken the oaths individually because of how the Congress applied those rules. However it wasn't a "constitution" violation, it was a violation of the rules of Congress not the constitution.
FNG mistakes are often irritating and interesting, but this wasn't what you are making it out to be.
Basically I used the long-form version of "Your analogy sucks out of dog behind" because it is applied differently everywhere. It would be what the judge accepted, not what you think he should accept.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
I expect she should ask permission from the Speaker of the House to ask a question, and when it's answered, as it's been done here, she should apologize for being an idiot....
Where does the Constitution say that the serve under oath. Please quote it.
I disagree.