Great start GOP!

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

STORY

Here the guys who put on a show by reading the Constitution could not even stick to it!

'GOP Reps Vote Before Being Sworn In!'

From the article:

When asked how exactly Fitzpatrick was sworn in, Spokesman Darren Smith said, "He stood in front of the TV that all the constituents were watching it on and took it there."

And this is the bunch who is going to rescue America??

 

[targus]

Can you show the violation of the Constitution here?

"Dreier pointed out that Jefferson's Manual (written by Thomas Jefferson [1], and is the guidebook to many House operations to this day) states that members-elect must be sworn-in by the Speaker in "proximity" of the Speaker. "

The procedual guidebook is not part of the Constitution.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Easy. You aren't a member of Congress until you are sworn in. These guys voted before they were members of the House. It has nothing to do with Jeffersons thoughts.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Easy. You aren't a member of Congress until you are sworn in. These guys voted before they were members of the House. It has nothing to do with Jeffersons thoughts.

You are right. A person is not a member until he/she has taken the oath of office. Same with the president. Maybe these guys should read the Constitution over a number of times for a better understanding of the guiding principles of our federal government.

 

[targus]

Easy. You aren't a member of Congress until you are sworn in. These guys voted before they were members of the House. It has nothing to do with Jeffersons thoughts.

"When asked how exactly Fitzpatrick was sworn in, Spokesman Darren Smith said, "He stood in front of the TV that all the constituents were watching it on and took it there."


Where does the Constitution detail what constitutes being sworn it?


"The Rules Committee is still trying to figure this out."

How is it that you are able to determine that they were not sworn in?

The Rules Committee isn't sure - how can you be?

By what constitutional standard?

 

[Aaron]

STORY

Here the guys who put on a show by reading the Constitution could not even stick to it!

'GOP Reps Vote Before Being Sworn In!'

From the article:


And this is the bunch who is going to rescue America??

Easy, C4, you're tipping your hand. Why not simply justify it as "politics as usual" as you do Obama's tyrany?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Where does the Constitution detail what constitutes being sworn it?

How is it that you are able to determine that they were not sworn in?

By what constitutional standard?

Let's use common sense, shall we? Do you really think a guy is sworn it when the oath over television? Does that mean I can vote in the House if I do the same.

You have to be a member of Congress to vote. The House has defined those rules and these guys violated them. They were no more constitutionally qualified than I am.


Can you imagine if it were two Democrats?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Easy, C4, you're tipping your hand. Why not simply justify it as "politics as usual" as you do Obama's tyrany?

Exactly, but these were the guys that the Evangelical Right depended on to be above that.

Thank you for making my point clearly. They are all just politicians, and this bunch is no different.

 

[targus]

Let's use common sense, shall we? Do you really think a guy is sworn it when the oath over television? Does that mean I can vote in the House if I do the same.

You have to be a member of Congress to vote. The House has defined those rules and these guys violated them. They were no more constitutionally qualified than I am.


Can you imagine if it were two Democrats?

How is it that you are so sure on this but the Rules Committee is not?

Is your expertise in the Constitution and the House rules so much greater than theirs?

Perhaps you missed your calling in life.

 

[Aaron]

Exactly, but these were the guys that the Evangelical Right depended on to be above that.

Thank you for making my point clearly. They are all just politicians, and this bunch is no different.

No. They weren't voted in to be above anything. They were voted in to stop Obama and his minions, and to fight fire with fire.

And I don't believe for one minute your point was that "there's no difference." You pretend to be indifferent with politics when the socialists are in power and forcing their agendas, and you're contemptuous and condescending toward the Christians who shine the light on it.

But now that the conservatives have taken over you're contemptuous with the politicians?

You slipped up. You could only pretend to be indifferent toward socialism because you agree with it. Isn't that right?

 

[Crabtownboy]

"When asked how exactly Fitzpatrick was sworn in, Spokesman Darren Smith said, "He stood in front of the TV that all the constituents were watching it on and took it there."


Where does the Constitution detail what constitutes being sworn it?


"The Rules Committee is still trying to figure this out."

How is it that you are able to determine that they were not sworn in?

The Rules Committee isn't sure - how can you be?

By what constitutional standard?

Seems the Rules Committee agreed it was a violation. Unconstitutional ... it doesn't matter. They were not members of Congress and thus could not legally vote.

The votes cast during the first days of the congressional session by two Republican lawmakers who skipped Wednesday's swearing-in ceremony will be invalidated, House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) said Thursday.

Dreier made the announcement at a meeting of the Rules Committee after it became clear that Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) had cast votes during the first two days of the 112th Congress despite having not technically been sworn into office.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/01/votes-of-gop-lawmakers-who-mis.html

 

[targus]

" 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."

Unconstitutional you say?

That is not what your article says.

As usual you are misrepresenting the facts. :laugh:

The Rules Committee did not say it was a violation.

The Rules Committee did not say it was unconstitutional.

The Rules Committee simply re-administerd the oath out of an abundance of caution.

And please - no homework assignments. :laugh:

 

[RAdam]

STORY

Here the guys who put on a show by reading the Constitution could not even stick to it!

'GOP Reps Vote Before Being Sworn In!'

From the article:


And this is the bunch who is going to rescue America??

No, they are not the bunch who will rescue America. I didn't vote them in to do that either. I voted them in to stop the rapid destruction of America, which was being perpetrated by the Democrats who had control of Capitol Hill and the White House. I don't think any politican can rescue America. I think if America will be saved it will have to be accomplished by the hand of God. That's who I'm depending on.

Politicians are all cut from pretty much the same cloth. Republicans were destroying this country before 2008. The difference is the rate at which the thing was going down. If these guys don't do their jobs, they'll be replaced like the former Representatives they replaced. Regardless, I have no illusions that many people on Capitol Hill know or care what the Constitution says. If they did, the government would right now be making changes to get itself back in line with that governing document.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No. They weren't voted in to be above anything. They were voted in to stop Obama and his minions, and to fight fire with fire.

And I don't believe for one minute your point was that "there's no difference." You pretend to be indifferent with politics when the socialists are in power and forcing their agendas, and you're contemptuous and condescending toward the Christians who shine the light on it.

But now that the conservatives have taken over you're contemptuous with the politicians?

You slipped up. You could only pretend to be indifferent toward socialism because you agree with it. Isn't that right?

As usual Aaron, your contempt for me has led you to misrepresent me.

This thread has achieved it purpose - the American Evangelical Right will defend their own guys to the hilt, while jumping at any cause to attack the 'bad guys.'

If this was two Deomcrats this place would be up in arms.

Can't we just be consistent? These guys were wrong. They were far too casual in taking their oaths of office. It is the same kind of arrogance that is attacked here daily if the Democrats manifest it.

BTW, in response to a comment above. If the oath taking was invalid, why did they redo it? If it was not valid they casts House votes while not members of the House. See Crabtownboy's post - the votes were invalidated. These guys were wrong!

These guys are all the same, no matter what label they use.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

No, they are not the bunch who will rescue America. I didn't vote them in to do that either. I voted them in to stop the rapid destruction of America, which was being perpetrated by the Democrats who had control of Capitol Hill and the White House. I don't think any politican can rescue America. I think if America will be saved it will have to be accomplished by the hand of God. That's who I'm depending on.

Politicians are all cut from pretty much the same cloth. Republicans were destroying this country before 2008. The difference is the rate at which the thing was going down. If these guys don't do their jobs, they'll be replaced like the former Representatives they replaced. Regardless, I have no illusions that many people on Capitol Hill know or care what the Constitution says. If they did, the government would right now be making changes to get itself back in line with that governing document.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!!

 

[targus]

If the oath taking was invalid, why did they redo it? .

As I already said - from Crabby's article...

The Rules Committee simply re-administerd the oath out of an abundance of caution.

IOW - better safe than sorry.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

As I already said - from Crabby's article...

The Rules Committee simply re-administerd the oath out of an abundance of caution.

IOW - better safe than sorry.

But the GOP, as the great redeemers, should be far and above this kind of thing, should they not?

I have no doubt what the response here would be if these guys were Democrats.

I just wish we could find consistency.

 

[targus]

But the GOP, as the great redeemers, should be far and above this kind of thing, should they not?

I have no doubt what the response here would be if these guys were Democrats.

I just wish we could find consistency.

Who said that the GOP are the great redeemers?

Aaron is correct - this is not the same attitude that you hold for the Demoncrats.

If you are looking for consistency perhaps you could start with yourself.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[InTheLight]

If this was two Deomcrats this place would be up in arms.

I'm new to BB so I can't comment on this. I do know that if it were Dems the right wing radio talk shows would have a field day with it.

Can't we just be consistent? These guys were wrong. They were far too casual in taking their oaths of office.

I agree.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Who said that the GOP are the great redeemers?

Aaron is correct - this is not the same attitude that you hold for the Demoncrats.

If you are looking for consistency perhaps you could start with yourself.:smilewinkgrin:

My attitude is the same. These politicians are all the same with the same agenda, to better themselves. The Republicrat Party needs to be run out of town, all of them. I understand the liberals and the lost clinging to a political party, but I don't understand this adoration of a political party by Christians.

GOP, despite the attitude of too many Christians, does not stand for God's Own Party.

Why can't it be admitted that these guys did the wrong thing? Is the GOP above that kind of criticism?

Dare we offend God's Own Party?