2 GOPers Fail to Take Constitutional Oath, Still Cast Votes

[StarshipTitanic]

Politico link.

Two Republicans, including a member of the GOP leadership, voted on the House floor several times despite not having been sworn in, throwing the House into parliamentary turmoil Thursday — the same day the Constitution was read aloud on the floor.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) missed the mass swearing-in ceremony on the House floor Wednesday but proceeded to cast a series of votes. Sessions, appointed to the Rules Committee, participated in some committee activities, and that panel was forced, at the suggestion of House parliamentarians, to suspend consideration of a rule for the repeal of last year’s health care overhaul until the matter was resolved.

Sessions’ office tried to explain his absence in a statement Thursday afternoon.

“During the swearing in of the 112th Congress, Congressman Sessions stated the oath publicly in the Capitol but was not on the House floor,” Sessions spokeswoman Emily Davis said. “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.”

Sessions and Fitzpatrick were at an event elsewhere in the Capitol complex and watched the swearing-in there. Because Fitzpatrick solicited funds in conjunction with an entire day’s worth of first-day activities, some outlets have reported that he was at a fundraiser. It is against federal criminal law for members of Congress to accept contributions in the Capitol or its surrounding office buildings.

There has been no indication that Fitzpatrick raised money during the celebration in the Capitol Visitor Center. Republican leaders hoped to get a unanimous agreement from the House to retroactively approve of their votes and Sessions’ work at the rules committee after they took the oath on the floor around 3 p.m. Thursday.

Failing that, their votes — which were not difference makers on any of the roll calls in which they participated — could be subtracted from the final tallies. House officials were searching for a precedent to follow but had not yet found a previous instance of members-elect voting without having taken the constitutionally required oath of office.

Fitzpatrick participated in a reading of the Constitution on the House floor Thursday. If he paid attention to the reading of Article 6, he heard these words “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.”

Democrats jumped on the flub — which will surely be taken by some as a serious breach of the nation’s governing principles and by others as an embarrassing blip to the start of the 112th Congress.

“Perhaps they should have read the Constitution yesterday rather than today,” said one senior Democratic aide.

And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a release pointing out the contradiction between the votes of the unelected and the attention the new Republican majority has given to the Constitution.

“Jokes aside, Congressmen-elect Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick’s actions raise serious questions: What in the world was more important to Congressmen-elect Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick than taking the oath of office, committing to support and defend the U.S. Constitution?” said Jennifer Crider, a senior official at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Why did Speaker Boehner and House Republican leadership allow two people who were not sworn Members of Congress to vote and speak on the House floor? Republicans have spent a lot of time over the past two days proselytizing about House rules, but they don’t seem very keen on actually following the rules.”

Sessions and Fitzpatrick each voted six times, including appearing for a quorum call, after Speaker John Boehner was elected and administered the oath to all other members on the House floor Wednesday.

The part I bolded requires Pelosi's agreement. I wanted to emphasize the extra amusement here.

Did the Republicans start bungling things this so early when they won control in 1995?

[LadyTevar]

They threw a fit about the slip of the tongue during Obama's Inugeration, so I say throw a fit about these two and throw those votes out.

[eion]

One could also charge them with unlawful conduct and disruption of Congress as Theresa Cao (The birther who heckled during the reading of the Constitution) has been for addressing the House without the right to do so.

[Feil]

It's a breach of tradition, but you'd be hard pressed to mark it for illegal. The Congressional oath, unlike the Presidential oath of office, doesn't even appear anywhere in the US Constitution. It sure as shooting doesn't say anything about it having to take place in a certain special room.

“During the swearing in of the 112th Congress, Congressman Sessions stated the oath publicly in the Capitol but was not on the House floor,” Sessions spokeswoman Emily Davis said.

There you go. He's set. Truth told, all he had to do to satisfy the Constitutional requirement was say "Yes, I support the Constitution" at some point after declaring his candidacy.

And besides that, it didn't even matter.

Failing that, their votes — which were not difference makers on any of the roll calls in which they participated — could be subtracted from the final tallies.

Seriously. It's an extremely minor breach of a legally ambiguous tradition, corrected within a day. The attention it's getting is already more than it deserves, and calling for criminal prosecution or making a big fuss is ridiculous. Turnabout may be fair play, but just being fair doesn't make something worth doing.

[eion]

It's a breach of tradition, but you'd be hard pressed to mark it for illegal. The Congressional oath, unlike the Presidential oath of office, doesn't even appear anywhere in the US Constitution. It sure as shooting doesn't say anything about it having to take place in a certain special room...

"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." ~Article VI

Just because the Constitution fails to spell out an appropriate oath word-for-word does not mean that there are not bodies of binding legal tradition that apply to the text and administration of that oath. US Code does in fact require a specifc oath be sworn, and requires additional paperwork which I'm sure the two moron's staffs will get to at some point. And the room is not at issue, it is the fact that the oath was not taken in the presence of a designated oath-giver, which would require either they be face-to-face (as every other member was) or connected via two-way communication, which they were surely not.

There you go. He's set. Truth told, all he had to do to satisfy the Constitutional requirement was say "Yes, I support the Constitution" at some point after declaring his candidacy.

Except U.S. law does not allow for oaths or affirmations to be self-administered as the whole point of an oath is that it creates the threat of perjury. The law recognizes only specific people as having the authority to administer oaths, judges, notary publics, etc. A television is not one of those people.

Seriously. It's an extremely minor breach of a legally ambiguous tradition, corrected within a day. The attention it's getting is already more than it deserves, and calling for criminal prosecution or making a big fuss is ridiculous. Turnabout may be fair play, but just being fair doesn't make something worth doing.

I was merely remarking on what possible action could be taken should one want to make these two morons who fucked up on their first day (and whose staff fucked up even more) stew in their own juices a little longer. The Democrats are certainly going to make hay out of this for a while, as they are right to do, but I would be very surprised if anything serious came of this.

The more interesting development is whether the function they were attending in the Capital, instead of taking their oath properly as their colleagues were, was indeed a fundraiser because that would be a very big issue. You are not permitted to hold fundraisers in the capital or office buildings by law.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

It's an extremely minor breach of a legally ambiguous tradition, corrected within a day.

Yes, it is minor, but it will be a big deal because the Republicans have made a big deal of the Holy Constitution. That two of their own should screw up so early on this is hilarious.

[Serafina]

All legal issues aside - why isn't that breaking their political necks? This could so easily be spinned into "you have the constitution, you are unamerican etc." - and they are GOP-members, so their voters are likely to fall for something like that.
I'm not saying that such accusations would be justified, i just don't get why this isn't happening.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, it's only been a few days; they aren't exactly going to melt like the Wicked Witch of the West the moment someone splashes them with "you screwed up!"

Honestly, I think a lot of people will view this as a minor faux pas, and in the grand scheme of things it probably is. But I do suspect that even given their infamous failure to make political capital out of their enemies' errors, the Democrats will use this to their advantage.

[Patrick Degan]

And WHEEEEE! After openly doing something unconstitutional, how does the First GOP Church of the Constitution deal with it?

From Hypocrits R'Us:

Yesterday Republicans had to stop business in the House of Representative after it was discovered two of their members had cast votes without taking the oath of office. Representatives Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Pete Sessions (R-TX) both were gone at a fundraising event while the oath of office was administered. Both subsequently voted and took on the duties of their office. Technically, that made all of those votes unconstitutional since Article VI requires,

"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,"

Today Republicans have been trying to find a way to backtrack and clean up their mess. One way to do so would have been through a unanimous consent decree. However, such a decree, by definition, would have required the consent of every Democrat in the House. The Democrats have withheld their consent. As a result the Republicans now are trying to pass a motion which will retroactively declare the actions of their own member Constitutional.

According to Talking Points Memo, Rep. David Dreir (R-CA) is now crafting language to be voted on by the House. The final language will then be voted on by the full House, and is likely to pass given the Republican majority there. The rule will nullify the votes of Sessions and Fitzpatrick, but also retroactively declare the actions Constitutional.

Update: The Republicans have now passed Dreir's resolution.

The Republicans' actions are sure to draw more criticism for liberals. Anyone who has taken Civics 101 knows that it is the judicial branch which normally declares actions constitutional or unconstitutional. Over the past two years the GOP has claimed that the Democrats ignored the limits of the Constitution. Now, in their first 48 hours in power, the Republicans are taking an "unprecedented" move to declare their own actions Constitutional.

Let me guess —this is legal and proper by those clauses in the constitution written in invisible ink which only Republicans can perceive on the parchment?