Pelosi may try to overturn the Iowa election of a Republican Representative....

[asaratis]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[kyzr]

That's not how state elections work.
Nancy should keep out of it.
The courts need to settle this fast.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This has been discussed for a few months and unfortunately, is not unprecedented and has legally happened. It will be interesting to see how much of her caucus would be willing to go along with it, particularly when you consider all the push back they gave to the Trump crowd for claiming the Democrats stole the presidential election. They would literally be stealing a Congressional seat from the Republicans that the State of Iowa certified.

 

[daveman]

You mind your own fucking business, Nancy.

 

[asaratis]

That's not how state elections work.
Nancy should keep out of it.
The courts need to settle this fast.

HR1 is also unconstitutional. The US House is usurping the rights of the state legislatures to determine their election system requirements.

 

[OKTexas]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

 

[asaratis]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

Perhaps the rules have changed since 1985 when Tip O'neal managed to unseat a Republican and seat a losing Democrat. The vote was 236 to 190. 236/426=0.5534 (55.3%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/02/house-seats-mccloskey/332a409d-fb2d-4960-bfb0-8f1a863546dd/

 

[OKTexas]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

Perhaps the rules have changed since 1985 when Tip O'neal managed to unseat a Republican and seat a losing Democrat. The vote was 236 to 190. 236/426=0.5534 (55.3%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/02/house-seats-mccloskey/332a409d-fb2d-4960-bfb0-8f1a863546dd/

The Constitution gives each house the authority to judge elections to their respective bodies. But once a member is seated and sworn, the Constitution prescribes only one method of removing them. That's by a 2/3rds vote.

.

 

[asaratis]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

Perhaps the rules have changed since 1985 when Tip O'neal managed to unseat a Republican and seat a losing Democrat. The vote was 236 to 190. 236/426=0.5534 (55.3%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/02/house-seats-mccloskey/332a409d-fb2d-4960-bfb0-8f1a863546dd/

The Constitution gives each house the authority to judge elections to their respective bodies. But once a member is seated and sworn, the Constitution prescribes only one method of removing them. That's by a 2/3rds vote.

.

That would be 66.6% minimum. As I linked, it was done in 1985 with only 55.3%. Unless the rules have been changed, it doesn't require 2/3 vote. I do hope you're right though.

 

[OKTexas]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

Perhaps the rules have changed since 1985 when Tip O'neal managed to unseat a Republican and seat a losing Democrat. The vote was 236 to 190. 236/426=0.5534 (55.3%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/02/house-seats-mccloskey/332a409d-fb2d-4960-bfb0-8f1a863546dd/

The Constitution gives each house the authority to judge elections to their respective bodies. But once a member is seated and sworn, the Constitution prescribes only one method of removing them. That's by a 2/3rds vote.

.

That would be 66.6% minimum. As I linked, it was done in 1985 with only 55.3%. Unless the rules have been changed, it doesn't require 2/3 vote. I do hope you're right though.

I know what the Constitution says, of course when is congress or the courts ever concerned with what the Constitution says.

.

 

[asaratis]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

Perhaps the rules have changed since 1985 when Tip O'neal managed to unseat a Republican and seat a losing Democrat. The vote was 236 to 190. 236/426=0.5534 (55.3%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/02/house-seats-mccloskey/332a409d-fb2d-4960-bfb0-8f1a863546dd/

The Constitution gives each house the authority to judge elections to their respective bodies. But once a member is seated and sworn, the Constitution prescribes only one method of removing them. That's by a 2/3rds vote.

.

That would be 66.6% minimum. As I linked, it was done in 1985 with only 55.3%. Unless the rules have been changed, it doesn't require 2/3 vote. I do hope you're right though.

I know what the Constitution says, of course when is congress or the courts ever concerned with the Constitution says.

.

That must have been the case in 1985 also.

Rule No. 1 for the Democrat Party: Damn the Constitution! Full Speed Ahead!

 

[Sunsettommy]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

Perhaps the rules have changed since 1985 when Tip O'neal managed to unseat a Republican and seat a losing Democrat. The vote was 236 to 190. 236/426=0.5534 (55.3%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/02/house-seats-mccloskey/332a409d-fb2d-4960-bfb0-8f1a863546dd/

The Constitution gives each house the authority to judge elections to their respective bodies. But once a member is seated and sworn, the Constitution prescribes only one method of removing them. That's by a 2/3rds vote.

.

That would be 66.6% minimum. As I linked, it was done in 1985 with only 55.3%. Unless the rules have been changed, it doesn't require 2/3 vote. I do hope you're right though.

The rules of the congress can't overturn the Constitution. It clearly says 2/3 in it., not only that the person has to be doing something wrong too.

 

[asaratis]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

Perhaps the rules have changed since 1985 when Tip O'neal managed to unseat a Republican and seat a losing Democrat. The vote was 236 to 190. 236/426=0.5534 (55.3%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/02/house-seats-mccloskey/332a409d-fb2d-4960-bfb0-8f1a863546dd/

The Constitution gives each house the authority to judge elections to their respective bodies. But once a member is seated and sworn, the Constitution prescribes only one method of removing them. That's by a 2/3rds vote.

.

That would be 66.6% minimum. As I linked, it was done in 1985 with only 55.3%. Unless the rules have been changed, it doesn't require 2/3 vote. I do hope you're right though.

The rules of the congress can't overturn the Constitution. It clearly says 2/3 in it., not only that the person has to be doing something wrong too.

The article from 1985 says that the vote that removed the already seated winning Republican and replaced him with the losing incumbent Democrat was 236 to 190. That is NOT sufficient for a 2/3 vote. I'm not familiar with the wording in the Constitution, but I believe what OKTexas posted.

If the article is correct, the Democrats ignored the Constitution and unseated the Republican anyway...with a LESS THAN 2/3 VOTE.

 

[MadChemist]

More Democrat Party hypocrisy. Nancy Pelosi is considering overturning a state-certified election of a Republican candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives.

It's okay though. Nancy's a Democrat!

If she does it, Iowans should forever VOTE RED!

Pelosi Says She’s Open to Overturning Republican Win in Iowa District

www.theepochtimes.com

Once a member is seated, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the chamber to expel them. Not gonna happen.

.

Perhaps the rules have changed since 1985 when Tip O'neal managed to unseat a Republican and seat a losing Democrat. The vote was 236 to 190. 236/426=0.5534 (55.3%)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1985/05/02/house-seats-mccloskey/332a409d-fb2d-4960-bfb0-8f1a863546dd/

The Constitution gives each house the authority to judge elections to their respective bodies. But once a member is seated and sworn, the Constitution prescribes only one method of removing them. That's by a 2/3rds vote.

.

That would be 66.6% minimum. As I linked, it was done in 1985 with only 55.3%. Unless the rules have been changed, it doesn't require 2/3 vote. I do hope you're right though.

I don't think the person in 1985 was ever seated.

There was a dispute over whether he lost or not.

Pelosi would need the same thing.

 

[asaratis]

................

I don't think the person in 1985 was ever seated.

There was a dispute over whether he lost or not.

Pelosi would need the same thing.

That is correct. My bad.

However, the Republican was certified by the Secretary of State (Indiana).

Democrats objected.

A state supervised recount was performed, giving the Republican a larger margin of victory.

The Democrats sent it to a "task force" committee.

On election night, McCloskey appeared to have won the seat, but errors in counting shifted the victory to McIntyre, who was then certified the winner by Indiana's secretary of state, a Republican.


On Jan. 3, the House split along party lines and voted not to seat McIntyre after questions were raised about the vote in Indiana. A state-supervised recount then gave McIntyre the victory by more than 400 votes, but Democrats charged that more than 4,800 ballots, many from predominantly black precincts, had been unfairly disallowed.



That led to creation of the House task force, which completed its work on April 18 in a fit of partisan anger over whether to count 32 unnotarized or unwitnessed absentee ballots.


When the Democrats on the task force decided not to count those votes, the result was 10 days of Republican rage described by House Majority Leader James C. Wright Jr. (D-Tex.) as "synthetic fury."


In two days of debate, Republicans charged that the Democrats had rigged the task force and its rules to ensure a Democratic victory and that the two Democrats on the task force had stopped counting votes once McCloskey was ahead. Republicans said the only solution was a special election.


"The task force simply found enough votes to elect its man McCloskey and then stopped counting," said Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-Minn.). "I believe McIntyre was beaten . . . by subjective judgments of McCloskey's Democratic cronies."

 

[blackhawk]

If she was to try this it would be a great talking point for Republicans in 2022.

 

[MadChemist]

................

I don't think the person in 1985 was ever seated.

There was a dispute over whether he lost or not.

Pelosi would need the same thing.

That is correct. My bad.

However, the Republican was certified by the Secretary of State (Indiana).

Democrats objected.

A state supervised recount was performed, giving the Republican a larger margin of victory.

The Democrats sent it to a "task force" committee.

On election night, McCloskey appeared to have won the seat, but errors in counting shifted the victory to McIntyre, who was then certified the winner by Indiana's secretary of state, a Republican.


On Jan. 3, the House split along party lines and voted not to seat McIntyre after questions were raised about the vote in Indiana. A state-supervised recount then gave McIntyre the victory by more than 400 votes, but Democrats charged that more than 4,800 ballots, many from predominantly black precincts, had been unfairly disallowed.



That led to creation of the House task force, which completed its work on April 18 in a fit of partisan anger over whether to count 32 unnotarized or unwitnessed absentee ballots.


When the Democrats on the task force decided not to count those votes, the result was 10 days of Republican rage described by House Majority Leader James C. Wright Jr. (D-Tex.) as "synthetic fury."


In two days of debate, Republicans charged that the Democrats had rigged the task force and its rules to ensure a Democratic victory and that the two Democrats on the task force had stopped counting votes once McCloskey was ahead. Republicans said the only solution was a special election.


"The task force simply found enough votes to elect its man McCloskey and then stopped counting," said Rep. Bill Frenzel (R-Minn.). "I believe McIntyre was beaten . . . by subjective judgments of McCloskey's Democratic cronies."

If she was to try this it would be a great talking point for Republicans in 2022.

12 seats lost while Trump was losing.

Imagine what 2022 will look like.

Especially after redistricting.