A few hopeful points:
The GOP could very well lose control of the Senate.
Because these GOP Senators will force a vote, the GOP may fracture, with moderates forced out. While this radicalizes the party, they lose numbers.
https://t.co/pb95rlJpqA
A few reasons. As
@ProfBrianKalt points out, refusing to seat them because they say the election wasn't valid gives credence to the lie that the election wasn't valid.
Moreover, there's no authority to refuse to seat an elected rep for telling lies. . .
https://t.co/dhbJeCHU8F
. . . which is what refusing to seat them would amount to.
The Democrats say, "You are doing really bad things so we won't seat you."
See the problem with that?
(1) It's illegal. The House doesn't get to decide who is seated. The states send their own reps.
moreover . . .
(2) If you say, "The House gets to refuse to seat a person who tells a lie about the election," where does that lead?
If things continue this direction, the political divide will not longer be liberal v. conservative.
The divide will be pro- democracy v. anti-democracy. . .
. . which means at least one party has to stand up for rule of law, which means that Pelosi can't take it on herself (and the Democrats can't take it on themselves) to decide who gets sworn in.
The states decide. Period.
The states elect their own representatives. They certify their elections.
There is no legal authority for the House to say, "You are breaking the law (or lying or inciting violence) or whatever, therefore, we won't seat you."
There are consquences. . .
https://t.co/DJhmgAVmAk
But because of due process and rule of law, the consequences are not quick or easy.
Quick and easy consequences happen only in authoritarian regimes. The autocrat decides. It's easy. No due process. No process.
See the appeal? Process is slow.
There are procedures for indicting a person and charging a person with a crime.
We don't decide as a group.
Pelosi doesn't decide.
There are things the house can do, but refusing to seat them isn't one of them.
What if . . .
https://t.co/MWeOg2c86q
. . . the elected representatives are acting at the direction of their constituents?
What if voters deliberately choose to elect a person who has vowed to end democracy?
See the problem?
People want easy fixes, but the problem is that a lot of Americans don't want democracy.
Yes.
Also, in a two-party system, it's hard for a party without a majority to maintain control of the presidency. If the Democrats win the Senate next week, they can take steps to reduce the ability of a minority party to hold power beyond its numbers.
https://t.co/YxnxIPz8YR
People who claim to be pro-democracy want the members of the House to overthrow rule of law and take it on themselves to ignore elections and decide who can and cannot be members of Congress.
Careful.
Rule of law means following all laws . . .
. . . even those in the way of what we think is best right now.
If both sides disregard rule of law to get the results they want, say goodbye to democracy. Neither side will be defending rule of law.
Moreover, the "both sides are equally bad" argument will be proven true.
The Fourteenth Amendment Section 3 does not give the Speaker of the House unilateral power to decide who can be seated in Congress and who cannot.
Can you imagine if that were true?
The issue is how this is defined and enforced.
https://t.co/wyMcOYeQCi
I can't imagine reading the text to mean:
"The Speaker of the House has the authority to refuse to seat members of Congress who the Speaker has determined violated this section."
See the problem? Read carefully. What is "insurrection"? What if the person never held office?
You all won't like this, but the Constitution contains a provision for removing House members who behave badly and against the interests of democracy.
They have short terms. Vote them out.
The problem is that so many voters support what they are doing.
https://t.co/BYJqkjZQze
You won't like it because you want a quick fix, but there are no quick fixes.
If a majority of voters sent Representative A to Congress to enact an agenda which the majority perceive as contrary to the best interests of democracy, you can't refuse to seat that member.
He is supported by a majority of Senators, who in turn, are supported by a majority of voters who are anti-democracy
https://t.co/JhSk8JVEsO McConnell is thus enacting an anti-democratic agenda.
Do you see a problem with urging the Democrats to follow his example?
The party trying to jettison rule of law has an advantage over the party trying to uphold rule of law.
The party trying to uphold rule of law must follow the rules.
The other is free to disregard laws and norms.
Fortunately, a majority of Americans want democracy.
The way to save democracy is not to imitate the party trying to destroy democracy.
The way to save democracy is with more democracy.
What do I mean?
See my list:
https://t.co/Er6v4syFQS
