Yesterday, Reps. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) failed to take the oath of office on the House floor along with the other 433 members of Congress which caused the GOP caucus to scurry, worrying that some of the congressional actions Sessions and Fitzpatrick took yesterday may not have been valid. This morning, the House passed a resolution to fix this problem by a vote of 257-159 — with 27 Democrats voting in favor, three House members voting “present” (including Sessions and Fitzpatrick), and 16 others not voting. The resolution invalidated any votes Sessions and Fitzpatrick had taken yesterday, but also said that “all other actions the members took would count as if the two representatives were sworn in on the floor.”
After the resolution was introduced, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) took to the House floor to criticize the new Majority for violating its own newly-instituted parliamentary rules. “A new section was created…that required at least three days notice to consider legislation,” he said, adding, “It is particularly important in this case since we’re dealing with a constitutional issue, one that is without precedent.”
Gee, but I thought the Constitution was an anachronism?Or over 100 years old, which means no one can understand it?
The New York Times has even attempted to paint the Constitution as "irrelevant".
So why would the progressives care whether the oath was taken a few minutes after the vote?
After all, it's a living and breathing document. It means whatever they want it to mean. Because they routinely mock and disregard the Constitution.
It's what they do. It's who they are.
4 comments:
I am having trouble understanding your point; if someone makes a promise, then goes and breaks that same promise, you would place blame on the person who pointed out the dishonesty involved?
Look at the facts: The Republican majority makes new parliamentary rules. The Republican majority then goes and immediately breaks those same parliamentary rules. Clearly, then, it must be the Democrats' fault for pointing out that the Republicans are unable to keep their word.
I can post as anonymous too.
What you are ignoring is that they caught the error and 'invalidated' the votes. That's the same thing as 'enforcing' the rule. And I don't see any evidence where anyone other than the guilty parties would have even noticed.
Notice I said guilty parties instead of excusing them? Them and their staffs were either just stupid or deceitful. But I can't think of any reason not to get sworn in on purpose.
But you go right ahead and defend Pelosi and Reid's actions of the past years.
Forgot to add, I haven't seen the majority lock the doors so the minority can't attend yet. I bet we will see more of Reid blocking ammendments in the Senate still though.
"After all, it's a living and breathing document. It means whatever they want it to mean. Because they routinely mock and disregard the Constitution."
That the point, buddy. You can't say that the Constitution is NOT a living, breathing document and then go ahead and ignore it on the very first day. No one is saying this is a serious violation, or anything more than a mistake, but you've really gotta appreciate the irony.
Seems like Weiner is simply being consistent with his own view of the Constitution and pointing out the hypocrisy of some of his Republican colleagues.
And no, you can't get sworn in over Skype either--it's not in the Constitution. :)
Post a Comment