Santos Expelled from House

[rightwinger]

They needed 2/3 of the House to oust Santos
Almost 3/4 voted him out

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans who voted to expel Santos did not want to have to defend saving him in next years election.

 

[berg80]

And his grounds could include a flat out denial of his constitutionally guaranteed right to the presumption of innocence.

He has no such constitutional right when it comes to expulsion proceedings. If he did the multiple calls for an expulsion vote made by congressmen that were granted would have been denied on constitutional grounds. Once again you are conflating these kinds of actions taken by the House with criminal proceedings for which the Constitution applies.

 

[berg80]

Republicans who voted to expel Santos did not want to have to defend saving him in next years election.

Right. The NY Repub contingent who voted a while back to table the expulsion motion realized the political peril it put them in so they changed their tune. Having Santos as part of the caucus became a liability exceeding the cost of having his reliably Crazy voting position in line with the majority's slim margin so he's out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There was no due process in this matter. You dolt.

He stole money from his constituents, the people he was supposed to represent, for his on personal benefit.

What’s unprecedented is Santos’ level of corruption and contempt for our democratic institutions; his expulsion was both justified and warranted.

You and others on the reprehensible right oppose Santos’ expulsion for purely partisan reasons, because he’s a Republican.

 

[hjmick]

Santos had to go. He should have been kicked to the curb months ago.

Now, about Robert Menendez...

 

[BackAgain]

He has no such constitutional right when it comes to expulsion proceedings. If he did the multiple calls for an expulsion vote made by congressmen that were granted would have been denied on constitutional grounds. Once again you are conflating these kinds of actions taken by the House with criminal proceedings for which the Constitution applies.

May to repeat — but not support — your idiotic claim. You shitbag.

 

[berg80]

He stole money from his constituents, the people he was supposed to represent, for his on personal benefit.

What’s unprecedented is Santos’ level of corruption and contempt for our democratic institutions; his expulsion was both justified and warranted.

You and others on the reprehensible right oppose Santos’ expulsion for purely partisan reasons, because he’s a Republican.

And because he represents a reliable vote for the Crazy when the Repubs only have a slim majority. Not to mention he could be replaced by a Dem in the special election.

 

[berg80]

May to repeat — but not support — your idiotic claim. You shitbag.

You're the one who made assertions about constitutional protections for Santos. Prove it or STFU.

"The Constitution does not say that you can expel a member only after he's been indicted … The Constitution simply says a two-thirds vote is what's necessary," Smock said. "The House is the judge of its own members, and the Constitution is clear on that."

History shows House expulsions are rare -- and Rep. George Santos just joined the list

Before Friday, there were only five times in history that a member of the U.S. House of Representatives had been expelled. Rep. George Santos just became the the sixth.

abcnews.go.com

Mr. Speaker, I first would point out that constitutional due process doesn’t apply here.

https://www.congress.gov/118/crec/2023/11/01/169/180/CREC-2023-11-01-pt1-PgH5214.pdf

 

[BackAgain]

He stole money from his constituents, the people he was supposed to represent, for his on personal benefit.

Allegedly. And I’m fine with him getting tried for his alleged conduct. But that hasn’t occurred yet, you hack.

What’s unprecedented is Santos’ level of corruption and contempt for our democratic institutions; his expulsion was both justified and warranted.

Not on that basis. At least not yet.

You and others on the reprehensible right oppose Santos’ expulsion for purely partisan reasons, because he’s a Republican.

Wrong. I oppose it, for now, on the ground that it is improper. He hasn’t been convicted of anything yet.

You unAmericannlefturds disdain our Constitution when it serves to protect the rights of others. You’re a scumbag.

 

[BackAgain]

You're the one who made assertions about constitutional protections for Santos. Prove it or STFU.

I already did, you gasbag motherfucker.

Try to keep up.

 

[Dekster]

But wasn’t he no longer a member as of the day they voted him out?

Nope. Being expelled just means you are not allowed to participate in their proceedings. Unless he resigns or something else happens at home like a recall, he will still keep the job until the end of the Congressional term. It is one of those quirks I assume was designed to make sure the majority cannot unseat the minority. He can do constituent services or stay at home googling "fool-proof fraud schemes", whichever he prefers if he elects not to resign or isn't removed from office.

 

[berg80]

Allegedly. And I’m fine with him getting tried for his alleged conduct. But that hasn’t occurred yet, you hack.

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants each chamber of Congress the power to“ punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/ISC%20Report_0.pdf

 

[berg80]

Nope. Being expelled just means you are not allowed to participate in their proceedings. Unless he resigns or something else happens at home like a recall, he will still keep the job until the end of the Congressional term. It is one of those quirks I assume was designed to make sure the majority cannot unseat the minority. He can do constituent services or stay at home googling "fool-proof fraud schemes", whichever he prefers if he elects not to resign or isn't removed from office.

Nope.

The expulsion of George Santos from Congress on Friday swept away one major political headache for Republicans, but it immediately set the stage for another: The party will have to defend his vulnerable seat in a special election early next year.

The race in New York is expected to be one of the most high-profile and expensive off-year House contests in decades. It has the potential to further shrink Republicans’ paper-thin majority and offer a preview of the broader battle for House control next November.

George Santos Is Gone. Two Dozen Candidates Want His Seat.

The New York Republican’s expulsion sets the stage for a high-stakes special election early next year to fill his Long Island swing seat.

www.nytimes.com

 

[rightwinger]

Santos had to go. He should have been kicked to the curb months ago.

Now, about Robert Menendez...

Democrats are not rallying to his defense

 

[BackAgain]

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants each chamber of Congress the power to“ punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/ISC%20Report_0.pdf

Already covered. Not even a matter in issue.

Since your fellow libturd (dainty) proved too cowardly to step up and even try to answer the question, let’s give you a free crack at it:

Is it your contention that, provided that 2/3rds of the Members agree, a Member can be tossed out for any reason or for no reason at all?

It’s really a straightforward question, answerable with either a “yes” or a “no.”

I’m going to guess that you’re just as cowardly as Dainty.

 

[BackAgain]

Democrats are not rallying to his defense

Are they moving to expel his ass?

 

[berg80]

Already covered. Not even a matter in issue.

Since your fellow libturd (dainty) proved too cowardly to step up and even try to answer the question, let’s give you a free crack at it:

Is it your contention that, provided that 2/3rds of the Members agree, a Member can be tossed out for any reason or for no reason at all?

It’s really a straightforward question, answerable with either a “yes” or a “no.”

I’m going to guess that you’re just as cowardly as Dainty.

No.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

The Constitution’s Rulemaking Clause authorizes the House of Representatives and Senate to establish rules by which each will conduct its own business. Describing the Senate’s authority under the Rulemaking Clause to determine how and when to conduct its business as broad, the Court noted in National Labor Relations Board v. Canning:

The Constitution explicitly empowers the Senate to ‘determine the Rules of its Proceedings.’ And we have held that ‘all matters of method are open to the determination’ of the Senate, as long as there is ‘a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained’ and the rule does not ‘ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.'1

The House and Senate’s authority to establish rules is ongoing. As the Supreme Court observed in United States v. Ballin: The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.2

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C2-1/ALDE_00013579/

Under Ballin, the House and Senate may exercise their rulemaking authorities at their discretion provided there is (1) a reasonable relation between the rule’s method and the desired result, and (2) the rule does not ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights.3 Case law on when a House or Senate rule transgresses this standard is limited. In the 1932 case United States v. Smith,4 the Court held that the Senate’s rules did not allow the Senate to deprive an appointee of his title to federal office after he had been confirmed and taken the oath of office. In reaching this decision, the Court construed the Senate’s rules and held against the Senate, stating: In deciding the issue, the Court must give great weight to the Senate’s present construction of its own rules; but so far, at least as that construction was arrived at subsequent to the events in controversy, we are not concluded by it.5

 

[berg80]

Are they moving to expel his ass?

Are Repubs?

Here are the Democrats who have called for Menendez to resign

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) is under pressure to resign from office after he was indicted on bribery charges Friday. New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy leads the chorus of voices, which also includes…

thehill.com

 

[BackAgain]

Not my contention, the constitutionally provided provision. So theoretically, yes. In reality, would it happen, no. Why? Because the Constitution calls for a 2/3 majority vote.
Of course if Repubs ever got a 2/3 majority nothing is beyond their duplicity.

Nice try at a quibble. But you’re wrong.

The reason the only correct answer is “no” and has to be “no” is obvious to any thinking person. I can see why you’d have difficulty with it

And the Constitutionally provided provision is absolutely NOT a grant of authority to ignore the other requirements of the Constitution.

The 2/3rds supermajority is indeed (as you imply) a safeguard. But it’s not necessarily a sufficient safeguard. You Democraps could fuckup a wet dream.