The Schumer shutdown slithers on

IBDaMann said:
Trump took care of that. The military will be getting paid. Trump didn't want our troops to get caught up in the crossfire.


Nope. They are simply not convening because the ball is in the Senate's court, and Schumer is simply obstructing.


... except that they are getting paid, thanks to Trump's philanthropy.


It's time to take your meds. The Epstein hoax has no "names".
Click to expand...
You never have anything value-added to contribute, do you? (IBDaMann)
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Just when you think cult members couldn't be any stupider along comes Diogenes to prove they can be. The Constitution doesn't set any time for when Congress has to be in session. If Congress was actually in session it would be required to swear in new members. The GOP is only protecting pedophiles by hiding the Epstein files.
Click to expand...

The constitutional basis for the U.S. House of Representatives to meet for "continuity" stems primarily from Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants each house of Congress the authority to determine the rules of its proceedings. This includes establishing procedures to ensure continuity of government operations, especially in emergencies.Additionally, the Continuity of Government framework is implicitly supported by the Constitution’s broader structure, particularly the need to maintain a functioning legislature to fulfill duties outlined in Article I (e.g., passing laws, appropriating funds, and providing checks on other branches). In extraordinary circumstances, such as national emergencies, the House may adopt rules to ensure quorum or operational continuity, as seen in post-9/11 measures like House Rule I, Clause 5, which allows for provisional quorum rules in catastrophic events.The 20th Amendment, Section 2 also mandates that Congress meet at least once a year (typically the first session after elections), reinforcing the expectation of continuous legislative function. While "continuity" itself isn’t explicitly mentioned, these provisions collectively enable the House to maintain operations under its own rules, even in crises, to uphold democratic governance.


Poor Richard Saunders said:
Show me when this occurred. What member of Congress was refused to be seated during a shut down. What has happened just recently is Mike Johnson did seat GOP members when the House was only conducting Pro Forma Sessions.
Click to expand...

Yes, there have been three past instances in U.S. history where new members of the House of Representatives had their seating delayed due to a government shutdown.

Rep.-elect Tom Campbell (R-CA) won a special election on December 12, 1995, during the shutdown. His certification and swearing-in were delayed until January 3, 1996, when the House reconvened after a partial funding agreement.

Rep.-elect Katherine Clark (D-MA), elected in a special election on December 10, 2013 (post-shutdown), y, but the shutdown slowed certification processes for other potential special elections. House Clerk operations were furloughed, delaying paperwork for some state certifications.

Rep.-elect Fred Keller (R-PA), elected in a May 2019 special election, faced a delay when the 2018-2019 shutdown disrupted House Clerk operations, slowing his certification.
 
The USDA has warned states via memo that SNAP and related benefits funding may run dry by November if the Schumer shutdown persists beyond current reserves, which cover October issuances. This could lead to delays or pauses.
 
Diogenes said:
The House already passed the CR.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Continuing Resolution (H.R. 5371, the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2026) on September 19, 2025. This bill extended federal funding through November 21, 2025, to avoid a shutdown starting October 1, 2025, but it failed multiple votes in the Senate, leading to the ongoing government shutdown.

The Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance most legislation, including this CR. With only 53 Republicans, we need at least 7 Democrat votes to pass it.

It can't pass the Senate without 60 votes. Got it?
Click to expand...
Pobre isn’t too bright.

He is irrelevant though.
 
Diogenes said:
The constitutional basis for the U.S. House of Representatives to meet for "continuity" stems primarily from Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which grants each house of Congress the authority to determine the rules of its proceedings. This includes establishing procedures to ensure continuity of government operations, especially in emergencies.Additionally, the Continuity of Government framework is implicitly supported by the Constitution’s broader structure, particularly the need to maintain a functioning legislature to fulfill duties outlined in Article I (e.g., passing laws, appropriating funds, and providing checks on other branches). In extraordinary circumstances, such as national emergencies, the House may adopt rules to ensure quorum or operational continuity, as seen in post-9/11 measures like House Rule I, Clause 5, which allows for provisional quorum rules in catastrophic events.The 20th Amendment, Section 2 also mandates that Congress meet at least once a year (typically the first session after elections), reinforcing the expectation of continuous legislative function. While "continuity" itself isn’t explicitly mentioned, these provisions collectively enable the House to maintain operations under its own rules, even in crises, to uphold democratic governance.
Click to expand...
OMFG. How stupid can you be? Because the House is given the power to make its own rules doesn't mean the House is mandated to be in pro forma session. Meeting "at least once a year" does not mean they have to be in session the entire year. It simply means they can't NOT meet for the entire year. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring them to hold pro forma sessions like you claimed.
Clearly the cult has eaten your brain for you to make such ridiculous arguments.

Then you completely ignore Art II which gives the President the power to convene Congress. This negates your silly argument that Congress is required to be in pro forma session. It would seem the opposite is true to your claim. Congress should not be in pro forma sessions but should actually be conducting business in a full session.
Diogenes said:
Yes, there have been three past instances in U.S. history where new members of the House of Representatives had their seating delayed due to a government shutdown.

Rep.-elect Tom Campbell (R-CA) won a special election on December 12, 1995, during the shutdown. His certification and swearing-in were delayed until January 3, 1996, when the House reconvened after a partial funding agreement.
Click to expand...
I guess you are completely ignorant of the meaning of "reconvened." Congress did adjourn for the Holidays which means they were not in session. Campbell was sworn the day they reconvened during the shutdown which didn't end until 3 days later. Congress was on recess from Dec 19th through Jan 3.
Diogenes said:
Rep.-elect Katherine Clark (D-MA), elected in a special election on December 10, 2013 (post-shutdown), y, but the shutdown slowed certification processes for other potential special elections. House Clerk operations were furloughed, delaying paperwork for some state certifications.
Click to expand...
She was not elected until AFTER the shutdown. That is what "post-shutdown" means. Do you understand simple things like time?
She also won her election on Dec 10th and was sworn in on Dec 12th.
Diogenes said:
Rep.-elect Fred Keller (R-PA), elected in a May 2019 special election, faced a delay when the 2018-2019 shutdown disrupted House Clerk operations, slowing his certification.
Click to expand...
The shutdown was from Dec 2018 - Jan 2019, Keller was elected in May 2019. It seems you are so deep in the cult you think the government was shutdown in May, three months after it had reopened.
 
Last edited:
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Then you completely ignore Art II which gives the President the power to convene Congress. This negates your silly argument that Congress is required to be in pro forma session.
Click to expand...

It's not my silly argument, it's in the cited above. If you want to think the Constitution is contradictory, go for it.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
I guess you are completely ignorant of the meaning of "reconvened." Congress did adjourn for the Holidays which means they were not in session. Campbell was sworn the day they reconvened during the shutdown which didn't end until 3 days later. Congress was on recess from Dec 19th through Jan 3.
Click to expand...

Was Campbell's confirmation delayed? Yes, it was.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
She was not elected until AFTER the shutdown. That is what "post-shutdown" means. Do you understand simple things like time?

The shutdown was from Dec 2018 - Jan 2019, Keller was elected in May 2019. It seems you are so deep in the cult you think the government was shutdown in May, three months after it had reopened.
Click to expand...

I don't recall claiming her election was delayed. Try re-reading what I posted.
 
Diogenes said:
It's not my silly argument, it's in the cited above. If you want to think the Constitution is contradictory, go for it.
Click to expand...

This is YOUR statement.
Diogenes said:
That's incorrect. The House holds brief "pro forma" sessions every few days (as required by the Constitution).
Click to expand...
The US Constitution in no way supports that idiotic statement by you. The US Constitution does not require pro forma sessions every few days.
Your argument in support of your ridiculous statement in no way supports the ridiculousness of what you said.
Diogenes said:
Was Campbell's confirmation delayed? Yes, it was.
Click to expand...
I had assumed that your claim of when he was sworn in was accurate. But then when I actually checked the historical record it seems you were not accurate. Campbell was elected on Dec 12th
and by Dec 15 was a member of the House.

So the correct answer is, "NO! His confirmation was not delayed."

I am curious why you lied? Is it because you are in a cult?
Diogenes said:
I don't recall claiming her election was delayed. Try re-reading what I posted.
Click to expand...
I asked you for instances of anyone who was delayed being sworn in during a government shut-down. You provided that as your example. Either you are too stupid to understand that May does not occur in Dec-Jan or you are too stupid to understand your examples didn't answer what I asked for. I suppose that is a result of your being in a cult. You are unable to understand simple things.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
This is YOUR statement.

The US Constitution in no way supports that idiotic statement by you. The US Constitution does not require pro forma sessions every few days.
Your argument in support of your ridiculous statement in no way supports the ridiculousness of what you said.

I had assumed that your claim of when he was sworn in was accurate. But then when I actually checked the historical record it seems you were not accurate. Campbell was elected on Dec 12th
and by Dec 15 was a member of the House.

So the correct answer is, "NO! His confirmation was not delayed."

I am curious why you lied? Is it because you are in a cult?

I asked you for instances of anyone who was delayed being sworn in during a government shut-down. You provided that as your example. Either you are too stupid to understand that May does not occur in Dec-Jan or you are too stupid to understand your examples didn't answer what I asked for. I suppose that is a result of your being in a cult. You are unable to understand simple things.
Click to expand...


I provided evidence. If you choose to reject it, that's not my problem.
 
Crepitus said:
Which branch of government does he control? I forget....
Click to expand...
Why the sudden pivot to irrelevance?

At issue is Schumer's Draconian control over Senate Democrats as well as the 60% approval needed to keep the government operating.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.
 
Diogenes said:
I provided evidence. If you choose to reject it, that's not my problem.
Click to expand...
You provided cult fabrications.
Was Tom Campbell elected on Dec 12th and then sworn in on Dec 15th of 1995? Yes/No

Who should we believe? A cult member like you or the Congressional record from 1995?
Screenshot 2025-10-18 131156.png

As to your other 2 examples.
Katherine Clark - elected on Dec 10, 2013. Sworn in Dec 12, 2013 (2 days)
www.congress.gov

Congressional Record

www.congress.gov

Fred Keller - Elected May 21, 2019, sworn in June 3rd, 2019. (12 days)
www.congress.gov

Congressional Record

www.congress.gov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top