2 House Republicans Missed Swearing In While At A Fundraiser In The Capitol, Violating Constitution

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

Two House Republicans Missed Swearing In While At A Fundraiser In The Capitol, Violating Constitution On Day It Was Read

First Posted: 01- 6-11 03:53 PM | Updated: 01- 6-11 05:54 PM

WASHINGTON -- Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.

The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in because they were at a fundraiser in the Capitol Visitors Center. The pair watched the swearing-in on television from the Capitol Visitors Center with their hands raised.

"That wasn't planned. It just worked out that way," said Fitzpatrick at the time, according to local press on hand, which noted that he "happened to be introducing Texas Congressman Pete Sessions while glad-handing his supporters in the Capitol Visitor Center that he secured for them when the House swearing in began."

House ethics rules forbid fundraising in the Capitol.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/two-house-republicans-vot_n_805423.html

[bushisanidiot]

1. MORONS!

I sure as hell hope Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick get mocked endlessly by the MSM for trying to swear in by watching a tv. They sure would be if they were DEMOCRATS!!!

[jberryhill]

2. Where does it say they have to take their oath at any particular ceremony?

[pacalo]

4. Article VI, Paragraph 3, according to the HP article provided in the OP.

[jberryhill]

5. Did you bother reading it?

I asked "where does it say it has to be taken at any particular ceremony"?

LMK when you hear an answer.

It doesn't.

[pacalo]

9. I was subliminally pointing out that kpete is only the messenger &

maybe you should direct your question to the writer of the article she posted. Do you expect her to do your homework? Look it up if you want to know.

[jberryhill]

11. It's called a "rhetorical question"

There is no requirement that anyone take an oath at any particular ceremony, place, or time.

Yes, they all are deemed to have been bound by oath.

----
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;
----

Asking a rhetorical question is not requesting someone else to look something up. In this instance it was pointing out that it's not there. The Constitution is not some ponderously long document in which it takes hours to find text.

[pacalo]

12. "LMK when you hear an ANSWER" doesn't suggest "rhetorical".

[jberryhill]

13. Do you see the line after that? It is the answer.

The part where I said "It doesn't".

I didn't want anyone to spend their lives lost in an entire four page document.

[pacalo]

14. Well, aren't you considerate.

The Republicans who violated the Constitution would be so grateful for that staunch defense.

[jberryhill]

15. So you agree with the "Obama is not really president" crowd

That have been singing that song for two years now.

[pacalo]

17. Okay, no more playing around on this one...please read the HP article.

Here's just a sample of what you didn't read:

On Thursday, the Rules Committee adjourned because Sessions had made a motion to open proceedings to begin considering the GOP bill to repeal health care reform - an action that can only be taken by an official member of Congress.

Emily Davis, a spokeswoman for Sessions, said that Sessions rectified the situation Thursday afternoon, after it came to his attention that he had not been properly sworn in. "During the swearing in of the 112th Congress, Congressman Sessions stated the oath publicly in the Capitol but was not on the House floor. 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," she said.

[jberryhill]

18. Yeah, just like the freepers say that nothing Obama does is "official"

They said they took the oath watching it on television.

I see no reason to surrender to the type of cargo-cult "voodoo law" thinking, prevalent among right wingers, that elevates form over substance.

It's like those people who think they "graduate" when they swing their tassel on a hat.

From DailyKos/

http://webkit.dailykos.com/stories/2011/1/6/933812/-Republicans-discover-Constitution-a-living-document.html

"The pair watched the swearing-in on television from the Capitol Visitors Center with their hands raised."

Oh, but the Constitution says "in the same room" somewhere, even though courts can do video testimony complete with swearing in witnesses.

So now Kos is "defending Republicsns". Riiiight...

[valerief]

22. There are some people that aren't worth the trouble and should be put on Ignore. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

27. +1000...

although I don't (i think) have anyone on ignore, there are quite a few I automatically do it to.

[valerief]

29. The piece of nonsense I was responding to reminded me to put that nuisance person back on Ignore.

I have a bunch of people on Ignore, because the "not real people" that post here are an endless infestation.

[ljm2002]

28. The violation is...

...that they "cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday".

In other words, it's not that they were not "sworn in on Wednesday", it's that when they cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, they were not yet sworn in.

[jberryhill]

31. Did you read the DailyKos piece?

They took the oath. There is nothing in the Constitution that required them to be in that room to do that.

[ljm2002]

34. A swearing-in requires that you repeat the oath of office...

...and the person presiding over the ceremony needs to be able hear you doing it.

Now, if the two had been in communication via closed-circuit TV, where they could be seen and heard by the person administering the oath, then you might have a point. However, these two bozos were at a separate location, where no one at the actual ceremony could see or hear them, and they just stood there with their hands raised. Lame.

From the Huffington Post article, it appears that both of them realized they had made a hash of it and re-took the oath properly. Also, both of them acknowledge that the PUBLIC RECORD will be adjusted accordingly. So I am not seeing how your position has any validity whatsoever (emphasis mine):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/two-house-republicans-vot_n_805423.html

'Emily Davis, a spokeswoman for Sessions, said that Sessions rectified the situation Thursday afternoon, after it came to his attention that he had not been properly sworn in. "During the swearing in of the 112th Congress, Congressman Sessions stated the oath publicly in the Capitol but was not on the House floor. 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," she said.

This is not Fitzpatrick's first rodeo: he served one previous term in Congress, before being beaten in 2006 by Democrat Patrick Murphy.

"Yesterday, at the time the oath of office was administered, Congressman Fitzpatrick was in the Capitol Building meeting with constituents from Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District," Fitzpatrick spokesman Darren Smith said. "He took the oath of office at that time. When the oath was administered, Congressman Fitzpatrick had already signed the written oath of office provided by the Clerk of the House. Today, after speaking with the House Parliamentarian, out of an abundance of caution, Congressman Fitzpatrick was re-administered the oath of office by the Speaker. The public record will be adjusted accordingly."'

Finally, you seem to think that just because someone with a byline at DailyKos thinks it's no big deal, the rest of us are obliged to agree. Nope. It would appear that the House Parliamentarian did not agree either, since they were both required to take the oath properly on Thursday, and their Wednesday votes will not count.

Bzzzt.

[24601]

39. This is not a requirement stated anywhere in the Constitution. And

if "...and the person presiding over the ceremony needs to be able hear you doing it." really was a requirement, it would preclude a deaf official from administering any oath of office.

HuffPo is full of BS and we should send Arianna back to the repugs - she does us absolutely no good.

[ljm2002]

49. Huffpo is not the only source of this story...

...and I have to ask, did you miss the part where both Congressmen re-took the oath and the official record will be changed to reflect the fact that they were not sworn in on Wednesday and thus were not eligible to vote on that day?

Maybe I am wrong that the person administering the oath "has to be able to hear them" in a literal sense. However, the House rules are clear on how the oath is administered, and what these two did was not in compliance with those rules (which are cited below).

What really amazes me about all this argument is how people will defend these guys, even though they were obviously wrong, and even though the Parliamentarian made them re-take their oaths. But no, we have people here who will defend to the death their right to be damn near anywhere on the planet as long as they watch the swearing-in over the TV and hold their hands up.

At the same time, any little violation of the rules by one of our guys, and they're all over it like flies on sh*t. But God forbid we should ever call them on their sh*t, because it would be unseemly or something.

No wonder our side has such a hard time actually winning anything. We'd rather let these Sessions and Fitzpatrick slide on by while flouting the rules, because it's so much more important to slam Huffington Post.

Whatever.

Oh by the way, here are a few non-Huffington Post citations for your perusal:

-----
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20110107_GOP_congressman_from_Pa__AWOL_from_swearing-in.html

...

But the law requires members to be present on the House floor to take the oath, said a congressional official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

After the House's parliamentarians raised concerns, both men were sworn in Thursday afternoon by Boehner.

Six votes cast by Fitzpatrick and Sessions had to be stricken, the same congressional official said.

Read more: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20110107_GOP_congressman_from_Pa__AWOL_from_swearing-in.html#ixzz1AMdB3ZM8
Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else

...

http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/memberfaq.html

As required by Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, Members of Congress shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution. Representatives, delegates, and the resident commissioner all take the oath of office on the first day of the new Congress, immediately after the House has elected its Speaker. The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:

"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Representatives elected in special elections during the course of a Congress generally take the oath of office on the floor of the House Chamber when the Clerk of the House has received a formal notice of the new Member's election or appointment from State government authorities. On rare occasions, because of illness or other circumstances, a Member-elect has been authorized to take the oath of office at a place other than the House. In those circumstances, the Clerk of the House sees to the proper administration of the oath.

...

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/06/pete-sessions-oath/

...

Pete Sessions (R-TX). Sessions failed to take his oath of office on the House floor alongside the other 450 congressmen yesterday, pretending to take it in the Capitol Visitors Center instead. However, Sessions was the (not quite) Member who offered the health care repeal motion today in the House Rules Committee forcing Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) to “abruptly adjourn” a hearing on the bill:

Dreier is consulting with the parliamentarian about how to best craft a unanimous consent agreement to rectify the situation, Maney said.

...

In response to the fiasco, “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.”

...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/pete-sessions-breaks-rules-shuts-down-rules-committee-1.php

...

Veteran Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and freshman Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) failed to make the official swearing in ceremony yesterday, a violation of the Constitution that has sent Republicans scrambling and briefly brought an end to the new majority's push to repeal the health care reform law.

...

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.

...

But the failure to be sworn in could mean the rules package the House passed on Wednesday doesn't count, according to Roll Call. 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.

...
-----

[Cherchez la Femme]

50. So

I could, let's say; intone vows of marriage just ...someplace else... and it's enough that I said I did? That nobody officially sanctioned to perform marriage necessarily had to hear me?

That nobody, like an official authorized to preside over marriages (in order to make them legal) had to officiate my oath-swearing?
(See the trend here?)


Well, whaddaya know! :crazy:


But I wonder if the person I'm saying I'm marrying has to agree? I mean, if I say it and others hear it....
If they don't have to agree, I'm so stealing Portia de Rossi away from Ellen!

[melm00se]

40. the Constitution does state

"Article VI, Paragraph 3: 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."

but it does not dictate a time, a place, who can administer the oath or any such detail.

based upon a strict reading of the what was actually written immediately calls into question that veracity of the headline stating that these folk were "Violating (the) Constitution" which in turns raises a question of the objectivity of the article.

NOW as to whether they violated federal law/rules/regulations as it relates to fundraising? that is a completely different kettle of fish.

[JDPriestly]

26. Here is what Article VI, Paragraph 3 says

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.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article6

The absence of these men kind of makes a mockery of all of the Republicans' bluster about reading the Constitution, especially since they were missing for of all reasons fundraising. What do you want to be they were hanging out with a bunch of lobbyists making their deals for the new session.

It's disgusting.

[jberryhill]

32. Where does it require them to be when they take the oath?

It requires them to take the oath. It does not require them to take it at any particular time or place. According to DailyKos, they did take the oath - just not in the room where everyone else was.

What difference does that make?

[kiranon]

33. Oaths are administered in person or by prior arrangements by other

means only if necessary (person in hospital for example). Holding up one's hand to the TV doesn't cut it. It shows a lack of respect for the institution/tradition/the Constitution and, if challenged, may prove ineffective. Even President Obama had the Chief Justice redo his swearing in when Roberts flubbed his lines. Suggest these 2 airheads get officially sworn in.

[24601]

38. Think back a few years. President Obama took an oath in public

during the inaugural ceremony. Then he signed a number of orders & nominations. Then he retook the oath later at the White House because the 1st oath was potentially flawed. I don't recall Huffing ton pontificating that the orders/nominations before the 2nd oath were invalid.

When JFK was assassinated, LBJ took the oath in Dallas on AF One. Nobody has seriously challenged it because LBJ's oath wasn't administered by the Chief Justice or in Washington.

This is all just HuffPo being guilty of "Public Stupidity."

[No Elephants]

41. Constitution says none of the things you say.about taking an oath.

As far as Obama, he signed Executive orders before he had taken the oath properly. No one claimed he had violated the Constitution.

This is 24 hour news cycle media-ginned hysteria. Meanwhile, no one knows how many troops died or were injured yesterday. Media has turned us into a nation of magpies.

[JDPriestly]

36. The Constitution does not require them to be anywhere, but it

looks very odd for the Republicans to make such a fuss about reading the Constitution aloud and then have these two off somewhere spending time with their donors while all the other members of Congress are listening to the reading of the Constitution. What a pair!

[Lord Magus]

37. Holding up your hand while watchign TV doesn't count as taking the oath.

Sorry guys.

[No Elephants]

42. In your opinion. Please see Reply 41.

[AlbertCat]

6. Where does it say they have to take their oath at any particular ceremony?

Who gives a rat's ass?

Typical Repug jerks who can't even make their OWN swearing in because they are chasing the all-mighty dollar. Sums up the GOP perfectly. Amateur public servants and representatives of their constituents, professional self servers and money grubbers.

[jberryhill]

7. Well obviously someone gives a rat's ass

Because it is the same nitwittitude that said "Obama's not really president" when Roberts flubbed the words.

[AlbertCat]

24. "Obama's not really president" when Roberts flubbed the words.

Yet another example of amateur Repugs who aren't capable of getting their job done correctly.

[No Elephants]

45. Article II and Article VI are VERY different as to oaths. I was very glad Obama re-did

the oath. I also hope very much he quietly re-signed and re-did anything and everything official he had done between inaug. and re-do.



Article II (President)

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."



Article VI (Senators and Representatives)

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.

[Mortos]

64. If you would bother to actually research the topic it is very easy to find

The members violated the "standard of collegiality in Jefferson's Manual," which was adopted by Congress in 1837. It is the parliamentary rules under which Congress must act.

http://www.congress.org/news/2011/01/07/absentee_oaths_add_wrinkle_to_proceedings

There was obviously concern on the republican side about the violation because they swore those members in again and nullified the votes recorded prior to the "official" oaths.

Under Jefferson's rules the oath MUST be sworn in proximity to the speaker.

I hope this answers your oft repeated question as to where it says they have to be in the same room.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Where are the consequences?

[woodsprite]

8. I'd be torn as to which is worse, missing taking the oath or violating ethics rules. n/t

[BadgerKid]

30. I find the former particularly *unpatriotic* in view of

how the GOP has manipulated people by playing the "patriotism" card.

[butterfly77]

10. You move your feet..

you lose your seat..

[K8-EEE]

16. Oh, high-LARIOUS!

SERIOUSLY this made me LOL!! What morons! hahahaha!

[tanyev]

19. No wonder the Pubbies need it read out loud.

They don't have a frakking clue what's really in it.

[liberal N proud]

20. And what is Representative Issa doing about it?

[mbperrin]

21. Since they have violated ethics rules by fundraising in the Capitol,

I assume that they will be investigate and censured forthwith?


Yeah, I thought............

[TygrBright]

23. It's not unConstitutional according to the Conservative Constitution!

The Conservative Constitution of the United States

helpfully,
Bright

[totodeinhere]

25. Much adieu about nothing. There are plenty of other reasons to criticize them,

but this smacks of grasping at straws to me.

[No Elephants]

43. I agree w you. Please see Replies 41 and 44.

[sofa king]

35. Let the circus begin!

DC specializes in offering sex, money, and free shit to bumpkin Congressmen fresh from the real world.

Bumpkin Congressmen fresh from the real world rarely specialize in saying no to all those things.

[No Elephants]

44. FOCUS on the very real ethics violation, not the fake issue.

Sessions has already taken the oath. Arguably, the Constitution does not require him to take it every session, as long as he remains bound by an oath he took previously.

Anyway, he and Fitzgerald ((another great name disgraced by a Republicon) supposedly took the oath before hundreds of witnesses. Nothing in the Constitution says that is not enough.


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.

Now, if folks want them to redo it to put the matter to rest, I am very cool with that. But, claiming they violated the is media bs.

I have no Constitutionalproblem with media, either---freedom of the press and all, but it is taking away from what should be the headline--a very real ethics violation.

They can re-do the oath, but they cannot change that they engaged in fundraising activities in D.C. And note, fundraising--trying to get money AND then taking what you raise, if anything --is broader than simply taking money. Therefore, refunds do not eliminate the violation, though the Rethugs will probably say otherwise.

[SpiralHawk]

46. "Waterboard the Republicon traitors." - TeaBaggers

[newtothegame]

47. Did the OP just post this and disappear?

:shrug:

[KingFlorez]

48. Breaking the rules already

A preview of coming attractions.

[classysassy]

51. The greed fest

I am sure Pete was just showing Mike how to troll for dollars for his next campaign.

[ncrainbowgrrl]

52. kick

:kick:

[tomm2thumbs]

53. House GOP tries to fix mess started by lawmakers who voted without being sworn in

Source: The Ticket/Yahoo News

...the leaders were stunned discover that two representatives — veteran Texas Rep. Pete Sessions and freshman Pennsylvania Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick — weren't on the House floor Wednesday during the official swearing-in. Instead, they were in the Capitol Visitors Center at a party marking Fitzpatrick's first day in Congress. At one point, the lawmakers looked up and noticed on TV that the oath was being administered to their colleagues.

As the Morning Call's Colby Itkowitz reported, the two raised their hands and joined along with their comrades. But under House rules, a TV-mediated swearing-in doesn't count. Sessions and Fitzpatrick continued to vote on the floor, even though they weren't properly sworn in -- which has effectively invalidated every vote the House has taken since Wednesday, including the vote to elect John Boehner as speaker. After learning of the problem Thursday, Boehner quickly swore in Sessions and Fitzpatrick, coincidentally on the same day Republicans took part in a reading of the Constitution, which the two technically violated.

<snip>

The House Rules Committee, led by California Republican David Dreier, had initially proposed a rule that would have allowed the pair's TV oath to count. But under House rules, the measure would have had to pass by unanimous consent, and Democrats, who are looking to delay a planned vote next week to repeal President Obama's health care bill, seemed disinclined to play ball. As a result, Dreier introduced Friday's resolution erasing the eight votes Sessions and Fitzpatrick took between Wednesday and Thursday afternoon.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110107/ts_yblog_theticket/house-gop-tries-to-fix-mess-started-by-lawmakers-who-voted-without-being-sworn-in

---

*** BIGGER PROBLEMS AHEAD FOR FITZPATRICK ON TOP OF THAT ***

Reports say the party that Sessions and Fitzpatrick attended was a fundraiser for the Pennsylvania congressman which is a blatant violation of House rules that outlaw the use of government spaces to raise campaign money.

The Freshen's political office has denied that the event was for fundraising –– however, it is noted that the Sunlight Foundation who is listed as a campaign finance watchdog group witnessed attendees being asked to fork over $30 for rides to the event and were specifically solicited for contributions to the Republican's campaign for re-election two years from now.

....

[howaboutme]

54. Constitution and swearing in are just frivolous formalities

Is that what the Constitutionalists now claim? I think we're going to see the same thing that we always see. Once the politicos get to DC their outlook changes from populism to elitism. Neither Party is immune from the "we're special" and rules don't apply mentality.

[tomm2thumbs]

55. here are the two Dumbsh*ts swearing themselves in at the Party, raising their hands to the TV

You can't make this sh*t up...


(CREDIT for PHOTO: David Garrett/Intelligencer via AP)


I love the fact that Fitzpatrick begins his term with a 0-6 voting record.

[high density]

56. So I guess I can go to c-span.org, watch the video, and become a member of congress as well

hah.

[tomm2thumbs]

57. heh heh - heck, I just voted on the Public Option by rewinding tape and raising my hand

it's so easy, even a GOP caveman can do it

[harun]

60. Not just a party, looks like it was also a fund-raising event, which is not allowed where they

were at.

No surprise to anyone who has their head not in their ass, I am sure the GOP followers will forgive them though.

[struggle4progress]

58. "I went to the Visitors Center to see if I could see myself in the chamber on TV"

:D

[DCKit]

61. Gawd, you're such a dick!

Don't tease the mentally handicapped. You'll go to hell.

[struggle4progress]

62. Maybe I should have more self-control. But Freshman Representatives traditionally get an orientation

to answer basic questions like WTF does 3 bells mean?

Presumably they also get a schedule covering little niceties such as When and where is the swearing-in ceremony?



Hoo boy! I've been elected to Congress! I can hardly wait to see the Visitors Center! :eyes:

[DCKit]

63. Somebody told him there was a "Free Money" ATM down there.

Good thing they didn't spread the word around or we'd have lost more than half of Congress in the stampede.

[lonestarnot]

59. ! ROFLMAO

:rofl: