Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jennings wants Buchanan seated in Congress temporarily

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:17 PM
Original message
Jennings wants Buchanan seated in Congress temporarily
Jennings wants Buchanan seated in Congress temporarily

There is new information unfolding in the District 13 dilemma.

Although she said she is not conceding, Christine Jennings is asking that Vern Buchanan take the 13th Congressional Seat on a temporary basis.

In a press conference held Friday in Sarasota, Jennings said she will continue her fight for the position, but wants to make sure the people of the 13th Congressional District have representation in Congress while the investigation continues in the undervote into Sarasota County.

Jennings said ultimately she would like to see a revote in the county, but only time will tell.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
trogdor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's it. Fold the tent.
If Jennings doesn't want to fight - and this is evident with this article - why should we? Apparently bad representation is better than no representation as far as she is concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Once the House certifies the election, that's it
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.... United States Constitution, Article I, Section 5.

Once the House has judged the election to be over and declares a winner, that's it, end of story, the fat lady has sung, the lights come up and everyone out. No "temporary" about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Exactly. What a stupid move!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. You were correct in quoting the Constitution, but
No where does it say that the House could not reconsider that decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. That would be equivalent to an impeachment and removal
from office.

Is that even possible in Congress?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. No, it would would not be equivalent of impeachment
Only the House can impeach, and the removal of office has to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate.

The Constitution gives each chamber of Congress the power to be judge the election of its members, and the power to expel its members.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. Not impeachment but...
To quote again from Article I, Section 5:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

In effect, the House of Representatives would need the approval of two thirds of its members to remove Buchanan once he was seated. Extremely unlikely, as that would require that a significant number of Republicans agree to decrease their own influence.

After that, it is arguable as to whether the House could seat Jennings by fiat (in essence, revise their earlier concurrence that Buchanan was legitimately elected) or if the matter would perforce be turned over to the state, which would place a new representative using whatever state laws apply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I misspoke.
Not 'impeachment'. Removal from office--but my point was that this is rather different simply reversing a motion (assuming the House rules of order allow for motions to be reversed), and falls under a different provision in the Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iowa_democrat Donating Member (104 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Damn
She must be getting advice from some DC Democrat who wants to make nice. Once he gets in she will NEVER get him out. Bad move all around. People in the district can survive without representation until the election is settled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zynx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
5. She should want the House to seat nobody and that would prompt
a special election to resolve this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. If they seat him
they will NOT unseat him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Benhurst Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. And they shouldn't. It's one thing not to seat a person when the
Edited on Fri Dec-29-06 05:32 PM by Benhurst
election is contested. It is another matter entirely to expel a sitting member of Congress.

What a dumb move on her part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. The folks in the election forum say it is ok....
but I feel uncomfortable, sort of. Like this is it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-29-06 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
11. The reason is so she can be ok to run again in 08.
Without having the stigma of having fought too hard.

We have been there before.

:cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:59 AM
Response to Original message
15. Very honorable. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
16. Maybe this is why Jennings is backing off
Judge's ruling a major blow to Democrat's bid for House seat

Dec. 30, 2006

TALLAHASSEE - A Leon County judge on Friday nearly derailed Christine Jennings' long-shot bid for Congress, ruling that the Southwest Florida Democrat has no right to inspect the secret software used in electronic voting machines in Sarasota County.

The tersely worded decision by Circuit Judge William Gary is a major blow because Jennings contends in a lawsuit that the ATM-styled machines used in Sarasota malfunctioned and cost her the votes that would have propelled her to victory in November.

ES&S, the company that makes the voting machines as well as ones used in Broward and Miami-Dade counties, says the machines did not malfunction and that the software is a trade secret.

''It's shocking that there is more concern for protecting a company's profits rather than protecting our right to vote,'' said Jennings, who said she would appeal the ruling. ``The secrecy and question marks surrounding electronic voting is creating a real crisis in confidence among America's voters, and the only way to resolve this is by conducting a thorough review by outside experts.''

Friday's ruling came hours after House Democratic leaders in Washington announced that they would allow Republican Vern Buchanan, who beat Jennings by 369 votes, to be seated when Congress reconvenes next week. Despite what happens in the courts, Congress has the ultimate power to decide who can be seated.

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/16348754.htm


Gary should go stick it where the sun don't shine. I hope this ruling is appealed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 08:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC