Første censurering af en amerikansk senator

Første censurering af en amerikansk senator


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Senator Timothy Pickering, en federalist fra Massachusetts, bliver den første senator, der bliver censureret, når senatet godkender et mistillidsvotum mod ham ved en stemme på 20 mod syv. Pickering blev anklaget for at have overtrådt kongressloven ved offentligt at afsløre hemmelige dokumenter, som præsidenten formidlede til senatet.

Under revolutionskrigen fungerede Pickering som general George Washingtons adjutantgeneral og blev i 1791 udnævnt til generalpostmester af præsident Washington. I 1795 fungerede han kortvarigt som Washingtons krigsekretær, inden han blev udnævnt til udenrigsminister i 1795. Han beholdt sin stilling under administration af præsident John Adams, men blev afskediget i 1800, da Adams, en moderat føderalist, fik at vide, at han havde planlagt med Alexander Hamilton for at styre USA i krig med det revolutionære Frankrig. Da han vendte tilbage til Massachusetts, blev han valgt til en amerikansk senator, men trådte tilbage, efter at han blev censureret for at afsløre for offentligheden hemmelige udenrigspolitiske dokumenter sendt af præsidenten til kongressen. Som en udtalt modstander af krigen i 1812 blev Pickering valgt som repræsentant fra Massachusetts i 1813 og tjente to perioder, før han trak sig tilbage fra politik.


Direkte valg af senatorer

Vælgerne har valgt deres senatorer i stemmeboksenes privatliv siden 1913. Grundlovens udformere havde imidlertid ikke til hensigt, at senatorer skulle vælges på denne måde og inkluderet i artikel I, afsnit 3, "Amerikas senat skal være sammensat af to senatorer fra hver stat, valgt af lovgiver i seks år, og hver senator skal have en stemme. " Valget af delegerede til forfatningskonventionen etablerede præcedensen for statens udvælgelse. Framerne mente, at ved valg af senatorer ville statslovgivere cementere deres bånd til den nationale regering, hvilket ville øge chancerne for at ratificere forfatningen. De forventede også, at senatorer valgt af statslovgivere ville være i stand til at koncentrere sig om den aktuelle forretning uden pres fra befolkningen.

Denne proces syntes at fungere godt indtil midten af ​​1850'erne. På det tidspunkt resulterede voksende fjendtligheder i forskellige stater i ledige senatsæder. I Indiana for eksempel forhindrede konflikten mellem demokraterne i den sydlige halvdel af staten og det nye republikanske parti i den nordlige halvdel valg af enhver kandidat og lod derved senatsædet stå ledigt i to år. Dette markerede begyndelsen på mange omstridte kampe i statslovgivere, da kampen om at vælge senatorer afspejlede de stigende spændinger om slaveri og staters rettigheder, der førte til borgerkrigen.

Efter borgerkrigen blev problemerne ved senatoriske valg af statslovgiverne mangedoblet. I et tilfælde i slutningen af ​​1860'erne blev valget af senator John Stockton i New Jersey bestridt med den begrundelse, at han var blevet valgt af en flerhed frem for et flertal i statslovgiver. Stockton baserede sit forsvar på den iagttagelse, at ikke alle stater valgte deres senatorer på samme måde og fremlagde en rapport, der illustrerede inkonsekvensen i statsvalg til senatorer. Som svar vedtog kongressen en lov i 1866, der regulerede, hvordan og hvornår senatorer blev valgt i hver stat. Dette var den første ændring i processen med senatoriske valg skabt af grundlæggerne. Loven hjalp, men løste ikke helt problemet, og blokeringer i nogle lovgivere fortsatte med at forårsage lange ledige pladser i nogle senatsæder.

Intimidering og bestikkelse markerede nogle af staternes udvalg af senatorer. Ni bestikkelsessager blev indbragt for senatet mellem 1866 og 1906. Desuden opstod 45 dødspærre i 20 stater mellem 1891 og 1905, hvilket resulterede i adskillige forsinkelser i siddende senatorer. I 1899 var problemer med at vælge en senator i Delaware så akutte, at statslovgiver ikke sendte en senator til Washington i fire år.

Impulsen til reform begyndte allerede i 1826, da der først blev foreslået direkte valg af senatorer. I 1870'erne sendte vælgerne et andragende til Repræsentanternes Hus om et folkeligt valg. Fra 1893 til 1902 steg momentum betydeligt. Hvert år i løbet af denne periode blev der foreslået en forfatningsændring for at vælge senatorer ved folkeafstemning i kongressen, men senatet modstod hårdt ændringer, på trods af de hyppige ledige stillinger og omstridte valgresultater. I midten af ​​1890'erne indlemmede Populistpartiet det direkte valg af senatorer i sin partiplatform, selvom hverken demokraterne eller republikanerne betalte meget varsel dengang. I begyndelsen af ​​1900'erne indledte en stat ændringer alene. Oregon var banebrydende for direkte valg og eksperimenterede med forskellige foranstaltninger over flere år, indtil det lykkedes i 1907. Kort efter fulgte Nebraska trop og lagde grunden til, at andre stater kunne vedtage foranstaltninger, der afspejler folks vilje. Senatorer, der modstod reformer, havde svært ved at ignorere den voksende støtte til direkte valg af senatorer.

Efter århundredeskiftet voksede momentum for reformer hurtigt. William Randolph Hearst udvidede sit forlagsimperium med Kosmopolitisk og kæmpede for årsagen til direkte valg med muckraking artikler og stærk fortaler for reform. Hearst hyrede en veteranreporter, David Graham Phillips, der skrev sviende stykker om senatorer og fremstillede dem som bønder for industrialister og finansfolk. Brikkerne blev til en serie med titlen "Forræderiet i Senatet", der optrådte i flere månedlige numre af bladet i 1906. Disse artikler galvaniserede offentligheden til at opretholde pres på senatet for reform.

Senatorer blev i stigende grad valgt baseret på statslige folkeafstemninger, svarende til de midler, Oregon udviklede. I 1912 valgte hele 29 stater senatorer enten som nominerede til deres partis primære eller ved et folketingsvalg. Som repræsentanter for en direkte valgproces støttede de nye senatorer foranstaltninger, der argumenterede for føderal lovgivning, men for at opnå reform var en forfatningsændring påkrævet. I 1911 tilbød senator Joseph Bristow fra Kansas en beslutning, der foreslog en forfatningsændring. Ideen nød også stærk støtte fra senator William Borah fra Idaho, der selv var et produkt af direkte valg. Otte sydlige senatorer og alle republikanske senatorer fra New England, New York og Pennsylvania modsatte sig senator Bristows beslutning. Senatet godkendte beslutningen hovedsageligt på grund af de senatorer, der var blevet valgt af statsinitierede reformer, hvoraf mange tjente deres første periode og derfor måske var mere villige til at støtte direkte valg. Efter at senatet vedtog ændringen, der repræsenterede kulminationen på årtiers debat om spørgsmålet, flyttede foranstaltningen til Repræsentanternes Hus.

Huset klarede sig oprindeligt ikke bedre end senatet i sine tidlige diskussioner om det foreslåede ændringsforslag. Meget krangel karakteriserede debatterne, men i sommeren 1912 vedtog Parlamentet endelig ændringen og sendte det til staterne til ratifikation. Kampagnen for offentlig støtte blev hjulpet af senatorer som Borah og statsforsker George H. Haynes, hvis videnskabelige arbejde med senatet bidrog meget til at vedtage ændringen.

Connecticuts godkendelse den 8. april 1913 gav det syttende ændringsforslag det krævede tre fjerdedels flertal, der var nødvendigt for vedtagelsen. Året efter var første gang, at alle senatoriske valg blev afholdt ved folkeafstemning.

Det syttende ændringsforslag gentager artikel I, første afsnit, første afsnit, i forfatningen og bestemmer valg af senatorer ved at erstatte udtrykket "valgt af lovgiveren heraf" med "valgt af dets folk". Desuden tillader det guvernør eller udøvende myndighed i hver stat, hvis den er godkendt af statens lovgiver, at udpege en senator i tilfælde af en ledig stilling, indtil der opstår et almindeligt valg.

Den syttende ændring af den amerikanske forfatning:

Amerikas senat består af to senatorer fra hver stat, valgt af dens befolkning, i seks år, og hver senator har én stemme. Vælgerne i hver stat skal have de nødvendige kvalifikationer for vælgerne i de mest talrige grene af statslovgiverne.

Når der opstår ledige stillinger i en stats repræsentation i Senatet, skal den pågældende eksekutivmyndighed udstede valgskrivelser for at besætte sådanne ledige stillinger: Forudsat at lovgivningen i enhver stat kan bemyndige den udøvende myndighed til at foretage midlertidige udnævnelser, indtil folket fylder de ledige stillinger ved valg, som lovgiver kan bestemme.

Denne ændring må ikke tolkes på en sådan måde, at den påvirker valget eller valget af en senator, der er valgt, før den bliver gyldig som en del af forfatningen.


Henry Clay ’s Resolution Censuring Andrew Jackson (1834)

Den 28. marts 1834 stemte det Whig-kontrollerede senat 26-20 for at censurere præsident Andrew Jackson. Denne handling var helt uden fortilfælde i amerikansk historie. Den endelige mistillidsvotum, den sidste i en række udkast til anklager skrevet af senator Henry Clay, lyder som følger: “Løst, at præsidenten i den sene eksekutivprocedure i forhold til de offentlige indtægter har påtaget sig myndighed og magt ikke at give & #8217d ved forfatningen og love, men i fravigelse af begge ”:

Ifølge Jackson ’s venner var det mistillidsvurderingen, der var i fravigelse af forfatningen. Hvis Jackson ’s handlinger var så grove, ville senatorerne, der censurerede, sikkert støtte en indsats mod anklager? Alligevel havde alle 26 fordømt Jackson ’s skyld i tilfælde af, at der faktisk opstod en retssag. De havde sat sig som anklagere, dommer og jury. Som alle vidste, var det imidlertid netop fordi anklager ikke var en politisk mulighed, at senatet havde valgt at censurere Jackson. Demokraterne kontrollerede huset og udgjorde mere end en tredjedel af senatet, så anklager var ikke en starter. Dette var ikke et meget principielt svar på fordomsafgiften, men den tog tilstrækkeligt højde for virkeligheden.

Jacksonians påpegede også, at censur intetsteds blev nævnt i forfatningen. Whigs indrømmede, at kongressen kun kunne udøve de beføjelser, der var delegeret til den, men de formulerede sagen anderledes. Clay's resolution af censur var ikke lovgivning og senatet afgav blot sin institutionelle mening om et spørgsmål om høj politisk og forfatningsmæssig import. Præcis hvor var det forbudt at gøre det?

Hvad havde Jackson gjort i den sene eksekutivprocedure i forhold til de offentlige indtægter for at fortjene sådan tordnende udmattelse? Den umiddelbare årsag var Jackson ’s afslag på at levere tilstrækkelig dokumentation i forbindelse med hans for tidlige kvælning af den anden bank i USA. Men det virkelige problem var naturligvis kvælningen i sig selv —Jackson havde beordret sin finansminister at fjerne offentlige indskud fra banken i 1833 og reelt ophævet dens juridiske inkorporering (Bank ’s charter skulle udløbe i 1836). Clay og firmaet var også forfærdede over, at Jackson havde krævet to skattesekretærers fratrædelser af anden grund end at de nægtede at gennemføre en politik, Whigs mente var en undtagelse af en#kongreshandling.

De forskellige resolutioner, Clay tilbød i løbet af at finde det rigtige sprog, er fastgjort til et større ark papir for at skabe en slags senatorisk fordømmelsescollage. Prototypen var mindre skrå i sin frygt end det endelige produkt. Her ’s Clay ’s originale todelte censure-opløsning:

𔄙st. Løste det ved at afskedige den afdøde statssekretær, fordi han ikke i modsætning til sin fornemmelse af sin egen pligt ville fjerne USA's penge i depot med USA's bank og dets filialer i overensstemmelse med præsidentens udtalelse og ved at udpege sin efterfølger til at foretage en sådan fjernelse, hvilket er sket, har præsidenten påtaget sig udøvelsen af ​​en magt over statskassen i USA, der ikke er givet ham i henhold til forfatningen og love, og farlig for folkets friheder.

2d. Det besluttede, at de grunde, der blev tildelt af finansministeren [Roger Taney], for fjernelse af USA -penge, deponeret i Bank of U. States og dets filialer, blev kommunikeret til kongressen den tredje dag i december 1833, er utilfredsstillende og utilstrækkelige. ”

Her er den ændrede version (undskyld den dårlige kvalitet):

“Løste, at ved at påtage sig ansvaret for at fjerne deponeringerne af de offentlige penge fra USA -banken, har USA's præsident påtaget sig udøvelsen af ​​en magt over statskassen i USA, ikke forudsat for ham ved forfatningen og love og farlig for folkets friheder. ”

Manglede i den endelige mistillidsvotum var enhver begrundelse for den opfattelse, at Jackson havde udøvet magt, der ikke blev givet ham i henhold til forfatningen og love, og påstanden om, at hans handlinger var farlige for folkets friheder. ” Ny i afstemningen -på version var påstanden, som Jackson havde krænket forfatning og love i USA ud over at udøve magt, der ikke er givet af dem.

Sådan ser bagsiden ud:

Præsident Jackson reagerede på lige så hidtil uset måde: han formelt protesterede mod senatens beslutning om censur. I endnu en historisk først nægtede senatet simpelthen at modtage præsidentens besked og udskrive det i sin journal.

Thomas Hart Benton, der engang duellerede Jackson i Nashville, stod i spidsen for en bevægelse i Senatet for at få censuropløsningen slettet fra Senatets Journal. (I gættede på, at der heller ikke var sket noget som dette.) Demokraterne havde snart stemmer nok til udvisning, og skødet blev udført den 16. januar 1837. Hvis mistillid var forfatningsstridig, var sletning af enhver rekord af det uden tvivl forfatningsstridig — iflg. Artikel I, afsnit 5, “ [e] ach House skal føre journal over sine procedurer og fra tid til anden offentliggøre det samme. . . og ja og nej for medlemmerne af et af husene i ethvert spørgsmål skal. . . blive indtastet i journalen. ” Jeg formoder, at Jacksonians var tilfredse med at bootstrap på deres fjender ’ formodede misgerninger, da det tjente til at annullere ondskaben.


Kritisere

Selv om censur også stammer fra den samme forfatningsklausul, er det ikke et begreb, Framers udtrykkeligt nævnte. 3

Censure fjerner ikke et medlem fra embedet. Når Parlamentet godkender sanktionen med flertalsafstemning, skal det censurerede medlem stå i husets brønd ("husets bar" var det nittende århundredes valgperiode), mens formanden eller præsidenten læser censuropløsningen og dens præambel højt som en form for offentlig irettesættelse.

Årtier før Parlamentet første gang udviste medlemmer, overvejede det censur for at registrere dets dybe misbilligelse af et medlems adfærd. Tidligt i dets eksistens overvejede huset (men brugte det i sidste ende ikke) mistillid til at straffe Matthew Lyon fra Vermont og Roger Griswold fra Connecticut for veloplyste brud på decorum i begyndelsen af ​​1798. Lyon havde spyttet på Griswold under et heftigt skænderi, og da Huset nægtede senere at udvise eller censurere Vermonter, Griswold søgte at forsvare sin ære ved at kaste ham ved sit skrivebord. Forbruget af dette "affray" oprettede huset et udvalg om privilegier til at undersøge hændelsen, selvom det i sidste ende nægtede at anbefale en straf, efter at begge mænd lovede "at bevare freden."

Især i det nittende århundrede, da politikere kæmpede dueller om overgreb mod deres ære og omdømme, dukkede censur op som et middel til effektivt at udfordre et medlems integritet. Fra begyndelsen af ​​1830'erne til slutningen af ​​1860'erne censurerede huset enkeltpersoner for uacceptabel adfærd, der i vid udstrækning fandt sted under gulvedebat. Første gang huset censurerede en af ​​sine egne, fandt sted i 1832, da William Stanbery fra Ohio fornærmede taleren Andrew Stevenson fra Virginia. Men da disse overtrædelser ikke steg til niveauet for bortvisning, krævede husets praksis simpelt flertal i en beslutning fra de fremmødte medlemmer og afstemninger.


Hvad vil det sige at censurere en politiker?

Efterhånden som efterforskningen af ​​anklager mod præsident Donald Trump går ind i en ny runde med høringer, er en idé blevet diskuteret som en måde at komme ud mod præsidenten uden for anklager og mistillid.

Censure er en formel misbilligelse, der kan vedtages af en eller begge kongreskamre. I modsætning til udsendelse er censur ikke en magt, som forfatningen giver, sagde Gregory Magarian, professor i jura ved Washington University i St. Louis. Huset og senatet har vedtaget interne regler, der gør det muligt for dem at udarbejde og godkende en mistillidsvotum, der giver en offentlig registrering, der afviser en embedsmands handlinger. En sådan beslutning er en irettesættelse, men bærer ikke nogen materiel straf som fjernelse fra embedet.

Hvorfor taler vi om mistillid frem for anklager?

Retssag og efterfølgende fjernelse fra embedet er den ultimative straf, lovgivere kan lægge på en præsident. Det demokratisk ledede hus vil sandsynligvis anklage Trump, men det er usandsynligt, at det senat, der ledes af republikanerne, fjerner ham fra embedet. Midt i undersøgelsen af ​​Trumps handler med Ukraine er censur blevet diskuteret blandt juridiske eksperter og lovgivere som et alternativ til anklager. Demokrater kan gå på rekord mod præsidentens handlinger uden at blive tabt ved en senatssag.

"Forespørgslen efterfulgt af en beslutning om mistillidsvurdering baseret på forespørgslen ville efterlade demokraterne i en stærkere position, end de ville være, hvis de sendte den til senatet og gennemgik en rodet fire til seks ugers proces," William Galston, senior fellow i governance -undersøgelser ved Brookings Institution, fortalte PBS NewsHour.

En mulig senats retssag, hævdede Galston, kunne distrahere fra den demokratiske primærvalg og tillade Trump at bruge anklager om at stille en sympatisk fortælling til offentligheden forud for sit genvalgsbud.

Censure kræver en lavere investering end rigsretssag, sagde Jessica Levinson, juraprofessor ved Loyola Marymount University. Det kræver ikke, at kongressen holder høringer eller beviser deres sag for offentligheden. Men lovgivere kan registrere deres misbilligelse.

Er en præsident nogensinde blevet censureret af kongressen?

En senatsbeslutning mod Andrew Jackson i 1834 giver "det klareste eksempel på en vellykket præsidentkendelse," ifølge Congressional Research Service. Lovgivere flyttede til at censurere Jackson for at tilbageholde dokumenter, som lovgivere anmodede om i forbindelse med hans beslutning om at tilbagebetale Den Anden Bank i USA. Mere almindeligt vedtages censure -resolutioner af kongressen eller statslovgivere for at straffe andre lovgivere.

Når det kommer til præsidenter, indtager censur et grumset område, sagde Magarian til PBS NewsHour. "Mit tarminstinkt er, at censur er både for kraftfuld og for magtesløs på samme tid," sagde han. ”På den ene side er det, som et spørgsmål om institutionelle normer, den største negative erklæring, et kongreshus kan fremsætte over for præsidenten eller andre. … På den anden side er det formodentlig en stor kamp for at få en mistillid, og i sidste ende ændrer det måske ikke noget. ”

Alligevel sagde han, at en mistillidsvotum ville være en mindre besværlig proces end en retssag i Senatet.

Kan der stadig ske en mistillid mod Trump?

Eksperter ser ud til at være blandede om, hvorvidt en censur ville være nyttig for demokraterne på dette tidspunkt i efterforskningen af ​​anklagen.

Galston hævder, at det mest fordelagtige valg for demokraterne ville have været at gå videre med mistillid over anklagelse fra begyndelsen.

Levinson sagde, at censur giver mere mening som en forløber for udsendelse. "Vi er allerede på det næste trin," sagde Levinson. Når lovgiverne har stemt om artikler om udsendelse, "er det meget mere drakonisk svar," tilføjede hun.

Lovgivere kunne stadig beslutte at censurere Trump som en symbolsk fordømmelse, hvis senatet frikender ham.

Hvordan ville en mistillid påvirke Trump?

Censur resulterer ikke i fjernelse fra embedet eller tab af præsidentbeføjelser. Men ligesom anklagelse kan censur skade Trumps chancer for genvalg i 2020 samt ødelægge hans ry og arv.

Trump nedskydede udsigten til mistillid, mens han talte med journalister i London. »Demokraterne er gået amok, de er skøre. Og det er meget dårligt for vores land, ”sagde Trump.

Til venstre: FILFOTO: USAs præsident Donald Trump taler til medierne på South Lawn i Det Hvide Hus i Washington, USA, inden han rejser til New York, 2. november 2019. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas/Arkivfoto - RC181F48F0F0


Den første sorte amerikanske senator levede et ekstraordinært liv

Hiram Revels undergravede slavestater og rekrutterede soldater i borgerkrigen. I de 150 år siden han tiltrådte, er han stadig en af ​​kun 11 sorte senatorer, der nogensinde er valgt eller udpeget.

Da Hiram Rhodes Revels rejste til Washington i 1870, havde han et historisk stykke papir med sig: et håndskrevet dokument, der bekræfter hans ret til at tjene i USAs senat. Revels var klar til at blive den første sorte person, der tjente i kongressen.

Men trods hans valg til posten blev den kommende senator ikke budt velkommen til lovgiver. I stedet stod den amerikanskfødte politiker over for hård debat fra fremtidige kolleger om, hvorvidt han var borger.

Revels blev født i North Carolina i 1827. Søn af gratis sorte forældre, han blev uddannet som barber, men forfulgte senere en uddannelse og en karriere som prædikant. Ordineret i den afrikanske metodistbiskopskirke rejste han meget og prædikede i hele Midtvesten og Syd.

Revels udfordrede den sociale orden i stater som Missouri, som forbød frie sorte mennesker at immigrere til staten og forbød både at prædike for og undervise sorte mennesker. Selvom Revels forsøgte at omgå lovgivningen ved at undgå prædikener, der kunne sætte gang i oprør - den formodede årsag bag at forbyde frie sorte mennesker at flytte til Missouri - blev han fængslet for at forkynde i 1854 og forlod Missouri kort tid efter.

Under borgerkrigen rekrutterede Revels sorte soldater til unionshæren og tjente som kapellan. Bagefter grundlagde han skoler og protesterede endda adskillelse, da hans familie fik tildelt pladser i et togs rygende bil på trods af at han betalte for et førsteklasses sæde. (Efter at han protesterede, tog de plads i førsteklasses bil.)

I 1866 flyttede Revels til Natchez, Mississippi, hvor han opbyggede et ry som en respekteret samfundsleder. Hans indflydelse, uddannelse og forståelse af de hvide amerikaneres verden gjorde ham til en "meget værdifuld ressource", skriver historikeren Julius E. Thompson.

Det gjorde ham også opmærksom på genopbygningsrepublikanerne, der opmuntrede ham til at stille op til politiske pladser, der endelig var åbne for sorte politikere. I 1868 blev han valgt til rådmand i Natchez. Et år senere stillede han op til Mississippis senat. Og i 1870, under det gamle system, hvor statslovgivere valgte nationale senatorer, accepterede han en udnævnelse til det amerikanske senat.

Da Revels tog til Washington i februar 1870, mødte han dog en forhindring: Demokratiske senatorer besluttede at blokere ham for national tjeneste. De argumenterede for, at han kun havde været amerikansk statsborger siden 1866, da Højesteret væltede dens Dred Scott beslutning, der havde hævdet, at afroamerikanere ikke var amerikanske statsborgere.

Revels blev kun optaget i Senatet efter en langvarig og lidenskabelig debat. "Hr. Revels viste overhovedet ingen forlegenhed, ”rapporterede the New York Times, "Og hans adfærd var så værdig, som man kunne forvente under omstændighederne."

Mens de var i Senatet, kæmpede Revels for at genindføre sorte lovgivere, der var blevet skubbet ud af kontoret i Georgien og modsatte sig adskilte skoler i District of Columbia. Men på trods af hans historiske rolle er Revels blevet kritiseret for at gøre for lidt for at hjælpe sorte amerikanere og for at støtte amnesti for tidligere konfødererede slaveholdere under hans senatstjeneste. Da hans korte senatperiode udløb, vendte han tilbage til Mississippi i marts 1871. Som historiker Eric Foner fortalte Washington PostSteve Hendrix, "Det var et afgørende øjeblik i amerikansk historie, selvom det kortvarigt blev styrtet."

Der var en anden genopbygningstids sort senator fra Mississippi, Blanche Bruce. Efter at han forlod senatet i 1881, vedtog Mississippi love - en del af en bølge af nye Jim Crow -love - der blokerede sorte mennesker for politisk deltagelse.


Resolution af mistillidsvotum mod senator Mitt Romney

Der henviser til, ved den første retssag mod anklager, den 5. februar 2020, uden beviser for en føderal forbrydelse eller forseelse og ignorerede den forfatningsstridige retssagsprocedure i huset, var Utahs junior den eneste republikanske stemme med senatdemokraterne for at dømme præs. Trump, der blev den første senator i 231 års amerikansk præsidenthistorie, der stemte imod en præsident for sit eget parti i en retssag mod en rigsretssag og

Der henviser til, den 13. januar 2021 vedtog Det amerikanske Repræsentanternes Hus en artikel om anklager om påstand om, at præsident Trump havde ansporet en opstand mod den amerikanske regering uden bevis for at påvise, at han tilskyndede til vold, da præsident Trump den 6. januar havde spurgt sin tilhængere af at "fredeligt og patriotisk gøre jeres stemmer hørt" og at FBI havde konkluderet, at besættelsen af ​​Capitol-bygningen af ​​optøjerne var forudplanlagt forud for præsidentens tale og

Der henviser til, den 26. januar 2021, efter at præsident Trump havde afsluttet sin periode og forlod sit embede, stemte senator Romney sammen med alle senatsdemokraterne for at fortsætte med en forfatningsstridig senatopvisning (hvor højesterets øverste dommer nægtede at præsidere) om husets artikel om udsendelse og

Der henviser til, den 13. februar 2021 stemte senator Romney sammen med alle senatsdemokraterne for at dømme Donald Trump på grundlag af anklager om anklager mod Parlamentet og

Der henviser til, Republikanerne i de seks andre stater, hvorfra republikanske senatorer stemte for at dømme præsident Trump, har holdt deres senatorer ansvarlige for deres uretmæssige stemmer og

Der henviser til, Utahs republikanske partiplatform kræver, at vi holder folkevalgte ledere ansvarlige for etiske standarder, og at stemme for at dømme en tidligere præsident uden tilstrækkeligt bevis for at bevise, at nogen af ​​elementerne i anklagen for tilskyndelse til oprør er både uretfærdig og uetisk

Derfor er det besluttet, at: Vi, bestyrelsen for Platform Republican PAC, erklærer hermed vores forenede mistillid til.

Layne Beck, Cache County
Matt Bell, Utah County
Aaron Bullen, Utah County
Mary Burkett, Washington County
Dalane England, Davis County
Brad Green, Iron County
Teena Horlacher, Davis County
Bob McEntee, Weber County
Larry Meyers, Washington County
Lowell Nelson, Utah County
David Pyne, Salt Lake County
Helen Redd, Salt Lake County
Lisa Shepherd, Utah County
Ed Wallace, Washington County


Første censurering af en amerikansk senator - HISTORIE

For nylig har der været nogle forfærdelige sager, der understreger, hvor langt den amerikanske kongres har adskilt sig fra enhver håndgribelig national interesse.

Mark Twain skrev engang, at "Det kunne sandsynligvis fremgå af fakta og tal, at der ikke er nogen udpræget indfødt amerikansk kriminalklasse undtagen kongressen." Nogle udviklinger i løbet af de sidste uger ville helt sikkert understøtte denne dom, hvis man betragter et lands lovgivende organ som en mekanisme, der har til formål at gavne den offentlighed, som det vælges at tjene. Hykleriet i Amerikas to store partier er noget at se, med korruption på et niveau, der sjældent opnås i de fleste tredjelandes lande.

For nylig har der været nogle forfærdelige sager, der understreger, hvor langt den amerikanske kongres har adskilt sig fra enhver håndgribelig national interesse, hvis man udelukker at blive rig og genvalgt, i hvilken rækkefølge man end ønsker at gå om det. En af de bedste til at blive rig og genvalgt på trods af ikke at have to hjerneceller at gnide sammen, er den anerkendte Maxine Waters fra Californien, der har spillet hovedrollen i sit seneste forsøg på at inspirere en vred pøbel til at blive mere "konfronterende", hvis drabsforsøget af Minneapolis politimand Derek Chauvin skulle gå den forkerte vej gennem en manglende domfældelse.

Husk nu på, at vi amerikanere lever i et samfund uden skyld, hvor der ikke er noget ansvar, hvor ingen er skyldige i noget, medmindre han eller hun bliver taget på fersk hånd og ikke har nogen beskyttere til at benægte, at der overhovedet er sket noget. Da Maxine har masser af forsvarere, fordi hun er sort, en kvinde og mest af alt en demokrat, burde det have været forventet, at en opfordring til optøjer fra en kongresmedlem ville blive behandlet som en ikke-begivenhed, og så det bevist, da GOP gjorde et svagt forsøg på at censurere hende for hendes opførsel.

Da Maxine repræsenterer en del af Californien, var hendes optræden i Minnesota lidt mere end race agn med en trussel om vold kastet ind. Forsøg på at karakterisere det som ytringsfrihed fra hendes side ignorerer det faktum, at hun er en embedsmand, betalt generøst af skatteyder og opfordring til vold fra en del af borgerne rettet mod både retssystemet og en anden valgkreds kan ikke anses for acceptabel. Det er virkelig anklageligt.

Man må undre sig over, hvem der har betalt for Waters 'Minnesota -rejse og undre sig over hendes frækhed, da hun bad om og modtog en bevæbnet politieledsager for sin egen sikkerhed, da hun rejste til og fra lufthavnen. Måske var hendes opkald til at affinansiere politiet i venteposition, indtil hun havde afsluttet sine rejser. Det er også vigtigt at indse, at hun på grund af den anciennitet, hun giver i sine 29 år i embedet, på trods af hendes mangel på noget, der kan beskrives som patriotisme med jævn integritet, er en del af Husets demokratiske ledelse. Hun er Chief Majority Whip, har været formand for House Black Caucus og er rangeringsmedlem i House Financial Services Committee. Aldrig før har nogen opnået så meget at have så lidt at byde på.

Men historien slutter ikke der, og det er her, den sande usandhed i den amerikanske kongres kommer til overfladen. Da republikanerne med rette forsøgte at censurere Waters, var det uundgåeligt, at den nylige anklagelse mod præsident Donald Trump for brug af brændende sprog, da han talte til en skare i Capitol den 6. januar, ville komme frem, men ledelsen af ​​Det Demokratiske Parti havde intet af det . Bakken rapporterer, at kort før Waters -censurafstemningen, frem for at acceptere, at de to lovovertrædelser var af en slags, leverede House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer i stedet en trussel og advarede den republikanske ledelse om, at tvinge et indkaldelse til censurering af Waters ville gøre det vanskeligere at retfærdiggøre ikke tager lignende handlinger rettet mod republikanske kongresmedlemmer. "Dette gør det imidlertid sværere ikke at fortsætte med adskillige [lignende] resolutioner på min side af gangen," sagde han.

Så spillet er under nye regler. The leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties have declared that they will impose punishment, including censure, suspension and even expulsion, on House and Senate members who defy the consensus on appropriate behavior, which itself has become heavily politicized.

The first Republican who is likely to feel the wrath of the Democratic controlled Congress is Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Representative Jimmy Gomez of California has already circulated a draft letter renewing his earlier effort to expel her from Congress. Gomez cited Greene for her alleged promotion of violence against other members of Congress. In his letter he included her promotion of “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” as yet another justification for her expulsion from Congress. The “Dear Colleague” letter begins with “[E]veryone – including House Republican leadership – knew this stunt was nothing more than an effort to promote white supremacy in the United States Congress.” He, of course, also claimed that she was engaged in the “brazen promotion of anti-Semitism and racism.” Somehow the anti-Semitism tag always seems to make it into these documents.

Gomez’s expulsion resolution already has 72 Democratic co-sponsors. House Democrats as well as 11 Republicans had already voted in February to strip Greene of her committee assignments over her alleged past endorsements of violence against Democrats and embrace of conspiracy theories to include suggesting that some mass shootings have been staged.

Greene, for her part, has tit for tat submitted a resolution to expel Waters based on her encouraging supporters to harass Trump administration officials when they made public appearances in 2018 while also saying a year earlier that she would “go and take Trump out tonight. “This is nothing new from Maxine Waters. She has been inciting violence and terrorism for the last 29 years,” Greene said in a statement.

Despite the current wave of lawmakers introducing measures to formally sanction each other, it seldom occurs that the House actually takes such a drastic step. Only 23 lawmakers have been censured in the House’s history and only five were expelled, mostly for actual criminal behavior. Nevertheless, the new environment condoning punishment of colleagues in Congress is only just gaining momentum and the Democrats clearly have the whip hand with their control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. To be sure, free speech is the most important liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, but the right of legislators to call on citizens to break the law up to and including the destruction of that very government that pays them and gives them their status has to be challenged. Say what they will when they are out of office, but when they take that oath of loyalty to the constitution it means that they are pledged to support all of those structures and safeguards that that foundational document has established.

Recently there have been some appalling cases that underline how far the American Congress has separated itself from any tangible national interest.

Mark Twain once wrote that “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Some developments over the past several weeks would certainly support that judgement if one regards a country’s legislative body as a mechanism intended to benefit the public that it is elected to serve. The hypocrisy of America’s two major parties is something to behold, with corruption at a level that is rarely attained in most third world countries.

Recently there have been some appalling cases that underline how far the American Congress has separated itself from any tangible national interest if one excludes getting rich and reelected, in whichever order one seeks to go about that. One of the best at getting rich and reelected in spite of not having two brain cells to rub together is the esteemed Maxine Waters of California, who has starred in her recent attempt to inspire an angry mob to get more “confrontational” if the murder trial of Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin were to go the wrong way through a failure to convict.

Now bear in mind that we Americans live in a no-fault no-accountability society, where no one is guilty of anything unless he or she is caught red handed and has no protectors in place to deny that anything at all happened. As Maxine has plenty of defenders because she is black, a woman and, most of all, a Democrat, it should have been expected that in her case a call to riot by a congressman would be treated as a non-event, and so it proved when the GOP made a feeble attempt to censure her for her behavior.

As Maxine represents part of California, her appearance in Minnesota was little more than race baiting with a threat of violence thrown in. Attempts to characterize it as free speech on her part ignore the fact that she is a government official, paid for generously by the taxpayer, and a call to violence by one part of the citizenry directed against both the legal system and another constituency cannot be considered acceptable. It is indeed impeachable.

One has to wonder who paid for Waters’ Minnesota trip and marvel at her audacity when she asked for and received an armed police escort for her own safety as she traveled to and from the airport. Perhaps her calls to de-fund the police were on hold until after she completed her travels. It is also important to realize that due to the seniority afforded by her 29 years in office she is, in spite of her lack of anything describable as patriotism of even integrity, part of the House Democratic leadership. She’s Chief Majority Whip, has been the chairperson of the House Black Caucus, and is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. Never before has anyone attained so much having so little to offer.

But the story does not end there, which is where the true mendacity of the U.S. Congress comes to the surface. When the Republicans rightly attempted to censure Waters it was inevitable that the recent impeachment of President Donald Trump for the use of incendiary language when addressing a crowd at the Capitol on January 6 th would come up, but the Democratic Party leadership was having none of that. The Hill reports that shortly before the Waters censure vote, rather than accepting that the two offenses were of a kind, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer instead delivered a threat, warning the Republican leadership that forcing a roll call on censuring Waters would make it more difficult to justify not taking similar action targeting Republican members of Congress. “This makes it harder, however, not to proceed on numerous [similar] resolutions on my side of the aisle” he said.

So the game is on under new rules. The leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties have declared that they will impose punishment, including censure, suspension and even expulsion, on House and Senate members who defy the consensus on appropriate behavior, which itself has become heavily politicized.

The first Republican who is likely to feel the wrath of the Democratic controlled Congress is Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Representative Jimmy Gomez of California has already circulated a draft letter renewing his earlier effort to expel her from Congress. Gomez cited Greene for her alleged promotion of violence against other members of Congress. In his letter he included her promotion of “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” as yet another justification for her expulsion from Congress. The “Dear Colleague” letter begins with “[E]veryone – including House Republican leadership – knew this stunt was nothing more than an effort to promote white supremacy in the United States Congress.” He, of course, also claimed that she was engaged in the “brazen promotion of anti-Semitism and racism.” Somehow the anti-Semitism tag always seems to make it into these documents.

Gomez’s expulsion resolution already has 72 Democratic co-sponsors. House Democrats as well as 11 Republicans had already voted in February to strip Greene of her committee assignments over her alleged past endorsements of violence against Democrats and embrace of conspiracy theories to include suggesting that some mass shootings have been staged.

Greene, for her part, has tit for tat submitted a resolution to expel Waters based on her encouraging supporters to harass Trump administration officials when they made public appearances in 2018 while also saying a year earlier that she would “go and take Trump out tonight. “This is nothing new from Maxine Waters. She has been inciting violence and terrorism for the last 29 years,” Greene said in a statement.

Despite the current wave of lawmakers introducing measures to formally sanction each other, it seldom occurs that the House actually takes such a drastic step. Only 23 lawmakers have been censured in the House’s history and only five were expelled, mostly for actual criminal behavior. Nevertheless, the new environment condoning punishment of colleagues in Congress is only just gaining momentum and the Democrats clearly have the whip hand with their control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. To be sure, free speech is the most important liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, but the right of legislators to call on citizens to break the law up to and including the destruction of that very government that pays them and gives them their status has to be challenged. Say what they will when they are out of office, but when they take that oath of loyalty to the constitution it means that they are pledged to support all of those structures and safeguards that that foundational document has established.

Recently there have been some appalling cases that underline how far the American Congress has separated itself from any tangible national interest.

Mark Twain once wrote that “It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.” Some developments over the past several weeks would certainly support that judgement if one regards a country’s legislative body as a mechanism intended to benefit the public that it is elected to serve. The hypocrisy of America’s two major parties is something to behold, with corruption at a level that is rarely attained in most third world countries.

Recently there have been some appalling cases that underline how far the American Congress has separated itself from any tangible national interest if one excludes getting rich and reelected, in whichever order one seeks to go about that. One of the best at getting rich and reelected in spite of not having two brain cells to rub together is the esteemed Maxine Waters of California, who has starred in her recent attempt to inspire an angry mob to get more “confrontational” if the murder trial of Minneapolis policeman Derek Chauvin were to go the wrong way through a failure to convict.

Now bear in mind that we Americans live in a no-fault no-accountability society, where no one is guilty of anything unless he or she is caught red handed and has no protectors in place to deny that anything at all happened. As Maxine has plenty of defenders because she is black, a woman and, most of all, a Democrat, it should have been expected that in her case a call to riot by a congressman would be treated as a non-event, and so it proved when the GOP made a feeble attempt to censure her for her behavior.

As Maxine represents part of California, her appearance in Minnesota was little more than race baiting with a threat of violence thrown in. Attempts to characterize it as free speech on her part ignore the fact that she is a government official, paid for generously by the taxpayer, and a call to violence by one part of the citizenry directed against both the legal system and another constituency cannot be considered acceptable. It is indeed impeachable.

One has to wonder who paid for Waters’ Minnesota trip and marvel at her audacity when she asked for and received an armed police escort for her own safety as she traveled to and from the airport. Perhaps her calls to de-fund the police were on hold until after she completed her travels. It is also important to realize that due to the seniority afforded by her 29 years in office she is, in spite of her lack of anything describable as patriotism of even integrity, part of the House Democratic leadership. She’s Chief Majority Whip, has been the chairperson of the House Black Caucus, and is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. Never before has anyone attained so much having so little to offer.

But the story does not end there, which is where the true mendacity of the U.S. Congress comes to the surface. When the Republicans rightly attempted to censure Waters it was inevitable that the recent impeachment of President Donald Trump for the use of incendiary language when addressing a crowd at the Capitol on January 6 th would come up, but the Democratic Party leadership was having none of that. The Hill reports that shortly before the Waters censure vote, rather than accepting that the two offenses were of a kind, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer instead delivered a threat, warning the Republican leadership that forcing a roll call on censuring Waters would make it more difficult to justify not taking similar action targeting Republican members of Congress. “This makes it harder, however, not to proceed on numerous [similar] resolutions on my side of the aisle” he said.

So the game is on under new rules. The leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties have declared that they will impose punishment, including censure, suspension and even expulsion, on House and Senate members who defy the consensus on appropriate behavior, which itself has become heavily politicized.

The first Republican who is likely to feel the wrath of the Democratic controlled Congress is Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. Representative Jimmy Gomez of California has already circulated a draft letter renewing his earlier effort to expel her from Congress. Gomez cited Greene for her alleged promotion of violence against other members of Congress. In his letter he included her promotion of “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” as yet another justification for her expulsion from Congress. The “Dear Colleague” letter begins with “[E]veryone – including House Republican leadership – knew this stunt was nothing more than an effort to promote white supremacy in the United States Congress.” He, of course, also claimed that she was engaged in the “brazen promotion of anti-Semitism and racism.” Somehow the anti-Semitism tag always seems to make it into these documents.

Gomez’s expulsion resolution already has 72 Democratic co-sponsors. House Democrats as well as 11 Republicans had already voted in February to strip Greene of her committee assignments over her alleged past endorsements of violence against Democrats and embrace of conspiracy theories to include suggesting that some mass shootings have been staged.

Greene, for her part, has tit for tat submitted a resolution to expel Waters based on her encouraging supporters to harass Trump administration officials when they made public appearances in 2018 while also saying a year earlier that she would “go and take Trump out tonight. “This is nothing new from Maxine Waters. She has been inciting violence and terrorism for the last 29 years,” Greene said in a statement.

Despite the current wave of lawmakers introducing measures to formally sanction each other, it seldom occurs that the House actually takes such a drastic step. Only 23 lawmakers have been censured in the House’s history and only five were expelled, mostly for actual criminal behavior. Nevertheless, the new environment condoning punishment of colleagues in Congress is only just gaining momentum and the Democrats clearly have the whip hand with their control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. To be sure, free speech is the most important liberty guaranteed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States, but the right of legislators to call on citizens to break the law up to and including the destruction of that very government that pays them and gives them their status has to be challenged. Say what they will when they are out of office, but when they take that oath of loyalty to the constitution it means that they are pledged to support all of those structures and safeguards that that foundational document has established.


Kamala Harris

Vores redaktører gennemgår, hvad du har indsendt, og afgør, om artiklen skal revideres.

Kamala Harris, fuldt ud Kamala Devi Harris, (born October 20, 1964, Oakland, California, U.S.), 49th vice president of the United States (2021– ) in the Democratic administration of Pres. Joe Biden. She was the first woman and the first African American to hold the post. She had previously served in the U.S. Senate (2017–21) and as attorney general of California (2011–17).

Who is Kamala Harris?

Kamala Harris, 49th vice president of the United States, is the first Black woman to have been elected vice president. She represented California in the U.S. Senate from 2017 to 2021 and served as the state’s attorney general from 2011 to 2017.

What political party is Kamala Harris a member of?

Kamala Harris is a member of the Democratic Party.

Did Kamala Harris run for president?

Kamala Harris sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. The nomination was secured by Joe Biden, who chose Harris as his running mate.

Where was Kamala Harris born?

Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October 20, 1964.

Where did Kamala Harris go to college?

Kamala Harris earned a B.A. in political science and economics from Howard University in 1986 and a law degree from Hastings College in 1989.

Her father, who was Jamaican, taught at Stanford University, and her mother, the daughter of an Indian diplomat, was a cancer researcher. Her younger sister, Maya, later became a public policy advocate. After studying political science and economics (B.A., 1986) at Howard University, Kamala earned a law degree (1989) from Hastings College.

She subsequently worked as a deputy district attorney (1990–98) in Oakland, earning a reputation for toughness as she prosecuted cases of gang violence, drug trafficking, and sexual abuse. Harris rose through the ranks, becoming district attorney in 2004. In 2010 she was narrowly elected attorney general of California—winning by a margin of less than 1 percent—thus becoming the first female and the first African American to hold the post. After taking office the following year, she demonstrated political independence, rejecting, for example, pressure from the administration of Pres. Barack Obama for her to settle a nationwide lawsuit against mortgage lenders for unfair practices. Instead, she pressed California’s case and in 2012 won a judgment five times higher than that originally offered. Her refusal to defend Proposition 8 (2008), which banned same-sex marriage in the state, helped lead to it being overturned in 2013. Harris’s book, Smart on Crime (2009 cowritten with Joan O’C. Hamilton), was considered a model for dealing with the problem of criminal recidivism.

In 2012 Harris delivered a memorable address at the Democratic National Convention, raising her national profile. Two years later she married attorney Douglas Emhoff. Widely considered a rising star within the party, she was recruited to run for the U.S. Senate seat held by Barbara Boxer, who was retiring. In early 2015 Harris declared her candidacy, and on the campaign trail she called for immigration and criminal-justice reforms, increases to the minimum wage, and protection of women’s reproductive rights. She easily won the 2016 election.

When she took office in January 2017, Harris became the first Indian American in the Senate and just the second Black woman. She began serving on both the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee, among other assignments. She became known for her prosecutorial style of questioning witnesses during hearings, which drew criticism—and occasional interruptions—from Republican senators. In June she drew particular attention for her questions to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was testifying before the intelligence committee on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election she had earlier called on him to resign. Harris’s memoir, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, was published in January 2019.

Shortly thereafter Harris announced that she was seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020. From the outset she was seen as one of the leading contenders, and she drew particular attention when, during a primary debate, she had a contentious exchange with fellow candidate Joe Biden over his opposition to school busing in the 1970s and ’80s, among other race-related topics. Although Harris’s support initially increased, by September 2019 her campaign was in serious trouble, and in December she dropped out of the race. She continued to maintain a high profile, notably becoming a leading advocate for social-justice reform following the May 2020 death of George Floyd, an African American who had been in police custody. Her efforts silenced some who had criticized her tenure as attorney general, alleging that she had failed to investigate charges of police misconduct, including questionable shootings. Others, however, felt that her embrace of reform was a political maneuver to capitalize on the increasing public popularity of social change. As racial injustice became a major issue in the United States, many Democrats called on Biden, the party’s presumptive nominee, to select an African American woman—a demographic that was seen as pivotal to his election chances—as his vice presidential running mate. In August Biden chose Harris, and she thus was the first Black woman to appear on a major party’s national ticket. In November she became the first Black woman to be elected vice president of the United States.

In the ensuing weeks Trump and various other Republicans challenged the election results, claiming voter fraud. Although a number of lawsuits were filed, no evidence was provided to support the allegations, and the vast majority of the cases were dismissed. During this time Harris and Biden began the transition to a new administration, announcing an agenda and selecting staff. By early December all states had certified the election results, and the process then moved to Congress for final certification. Amid Trump’s repeated calls for Republicans to overturn the election, a group of congressional members, which notably included Senators Josh Hawley (Missouri) and Ted Cruz (Texas), announced that they would challenge the electors of various states. Shortly after the proceedings began on January 6, 2021, a mob of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. It took several hours to secure the building, but Biden and Harris were eventually certified as the winners. She later denounced the siege—which many believed was incited by Trump—as “an assault on America’s democracy.” On January 18 she officially resigned from the Senate. Two days later, amid an incredible security presence, Harris was sworn in as vice president.


Rep. Cicilline Demands The Censuring Of Colleagues For The “Mischaracterization” Of The Jan. 6th Riot

We have been discussing the effort in Congress to punish dissenting viewpoints among members on issues ranging from the Jan. 6th riot to the pandemic to racism. This has included sweeping calls for members to be disbarred or expelled for their criticism of the 2020 election or continued questioning of election irregularities. Rep. David Cicilline (D., R.I.) has been one of those calling for punishment of members who have the temerity to disagree with his view of the election or the riot. Now, Cicilline is asking Democratic colleagues to sign on to a resolution to censure three House Republicans who are accused mischaracterizing the Jan. 6 riot, including refusing to call it an “insurrection.” It is the latest attempt to regulate how members and others discuss issues, dictating viewpoints by controlling speech used to express views.

Cicilline is demanding a resolution to censure Republican Reps. Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Jody Hice (Ga.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.) for remarks that he felt downplayed the violent attack on the Capitol during a House Oversight and Reform Committee hearing this week. This included the failure to use the seemingly mandatory reference to the riot as an “insurrection”:

“The members who testified that January 6th was ‘not an insurrection’ and undermined the damage that was done put their own political agendas above their country. In doing so, they recklessly disregarded the future harm they could cause by legitimizing a violent attack on our democratic institutions – a conscious and harmful decision calling into question their dedication to their role as Representatives'”

The obvious problem is that rejecting the term “insurrection” is not “legitimizing a violent attack.” Many of us refer to the violence as a “riot” because it makes fewer assumptions as to the motivations of all of those present. It is not to downplay the violence or its implications for our country. I condemned Donald Trump’s speech while he was still giving it and condemned the violence as it was unfolding. However, there were thousands of people at the protest and most were not violent and did not enter the Capitol. Those who did enter the Capitol revealed a mix of motives and actions as reflected in the charges brought by the Justice Department. Some meandered around the Capitol while others engaged in violent and destructive acts. There was clearly a core of determined and violent individuals who engaged in a premeditated efforts to stop the certification of the votes from the election. Recognizing such varied motives and actions does not legitimize the violence or dismiss the seriousness of the attack. As I have previously written, even if this was not technically an insurrection, it was a desecration of our constitutional process.

The most important point is that people of good faith can differ on how to characterize or understand what occurred on January 6th while still condemning the violence. The comments of Clyde received the most attention in the press. Here is what he said in pertinent part:

CLYDE: Thank you, Madam Chair. This hearing is called the Capitol Insurrection let ‘s be honest with the American people . It was not an insurrection , and we cannot call it that and be truthful. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines an insurrection as, and I quote, “an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government and take control of their country, usually by violence” and then from the Century Dictionary, “the act of rising against civil authority or governmental restraint specifically the armed resistance of a number of persons to the power of the state.”

As one of the members who stayed in the Capitol and on the House floor who with other Republican colleagues helped barricade the door until almost 3 PM that day from the mob who tried to enter I can tell you the House floor was never breached, and it was not an insurrection . This is the truth.

There was an undisciplined mob there were some rioters and some who committed acts of vandalism but let me clear , there was no insurrection , and to call it an insurrection , in my opinion , is a bold -faced lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures . You know , if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

There were no firearms confiscated from anyone who breached the Capitol . Also, the only shot fired on January 6th was from a Capitol Police officer who killed an unarmed protester, Ashli Babbitt, in what will probably be eventually be determined to be a needless display of lethal force.

Notably, Clyde then undermined his distinction between a riot and an insurrection by stating that the real insurrection was the Russian collusion scandal:

I agree with that 100 percent, you know , but the only insurrection that I have witnessed in my lifetime was the one conducted by members of the FBI with participants from the DOJ and other agencies under the banner Russia, Russia, Russia. High-ranking employees from these federal agencies and members of an independent counsel coordinated and fed a false narrative for over two years that the 2016 election was stolen and illegitimate.

Democrats were on the news almost every night saying the evidence is there, and the mainstream media amplified the fake news. This was indeed a very coordinated and well-funded effort by a determined group of people to overthrow our duly elected President Donald J Trump.

The statement taken as a whole is self-contradictory and ultimately incoherent. However, Clyde was not defending the rioters but objecting to the characterization of their criminal conduct as an insurrection. Members like all citizens are allowed to draw such a distinction. I disagreed with the challenge on the floor and the claims over the authority of Vice President Pence to “send back” the votes. However, members reflects different constituencies and viewpoints. They have a right to voice those views. Indeed, members are protected in doing such by not just the First Amendment but the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution.

Clearly, the Congress has the right to censure any member. Under Article I, Section 5 “[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” However, to do so over such a question is an abusive of the legislative process.

Rep. Hice focused on defending former President Donald Trump from allegations that he incited an insurrection, the basis for his second impeachment. That is an issue that still divides this country with good arguments on both sides.

As for Rep. Gosar, he criticized the handling of the investigations and prosecutions by the Justice Department as excessive and pointed out how the lead prosecutor boasted on television that they sought to hit defendants so hard as to create “shock and awe” to deter others. He specifically questioned the handling of the investigation into the death of Ashli Babbitt, a case that raised concerns for many including myself.

Again, I do not agree with some of the characterizations or rhetoric of these members. However, the attempt to censure colleagues for holding such opposing views is a disgraceful use of legislative authority. Cicilline wrote:

“These three members dangerously mischaracterized what happened that day and showed more sympathy for the domestic terrorists than the Capitol police officers who died during the attack…These members cannot be allowed to rewrite history at their convenience by disrespecting the sacrifices made by Capitol police officers and downplaying the violent, destructive intent that rioters carried into this sacred building,” Cicilline added. ‘The January 6th insurrection was an attack on our democracy that we must continue to defend against today.’”

Read that over a few times. Cicilline wants to censure colleagues for “dangerous mischaracterizations [of] what happened that day.” Putting aside the irony given challenges to Cicilline’s own often over-hearted rhetoric (including as a House impeachment manager), he is seeking to punish colleagues for holding an opposing view of what occurred on that day.

As support for this abusive measure, Cicilline cited the expulsion of 17 members of Congress during the Civil War for “disloyalty to the United States.” Cicilline is historically correct about the expulsions but absurdly off-base in his analogy to the current controversy.

The move to expel these members occurred on March 1861. That was a month after the start of the war with the firing on Fort Sumpter. On April 15, President Lincoln declared an insurrection. By that time, most Southern members rushed back to support the Confederacy, leaving vacancies in Congress. Maine Sen. William Pitt Fessenden thought it was insane to hold the seats for members who left the Senate to join a rebellion. The Senate agreed and struck the names of the senators. In July 1861, The 10 senators were expelled in July 1861 for being engaged “in a conspiracy against the peace and union of the United States Government” for their support of the Confederacy, according to the Senate. Keep in mind that the first Battle of Bull Run occurred on July 21, 1861.

One senator was expelled on Dec. 4, 1861 because John Breckinridge, of Kentucky, had waited to see if Civil War could be avoided but then “joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the Government he had sworn the support.” What is interesting is that, in October 1861, Breckinridge sent a formal letter of resignation to the Senate but months later Michigan Sen. Zachariah Chandler still moved to expel him. Ultimately, 14 senators were expelled.

Those were members who supported a civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, including some like Breckinridge who took up arms in the Confederate forces. Cicilline sees no distinction with colleagues who condemned the violence but characterized it as a riot rather than an insurrection. Again, Cicilline insisted “We cannot allow this abhorrent mischaracterization to go unchecked.”

Just as our Constitution protects against the tyranny of the few, it also protects against the tyranny of the majority. As Madison said, “It is of great importance in a republic, not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.”

While a censure is unlikely to prompt judicial review (which is why it likely appears to Cicilline), it is still an offense to our constitutional values. The Cicilline resolution should be condemned by members of both parties as an abuse of legislative authority and inimical to the legislative process. He would open a Pandora’s Box of politically retaliatory measures that would see no end in our age of rage. There remain members on both sides who continue to fuel our divisions and capitalize on our tragedies for political purposes. No party owns the rights to Jan. 6th or the national pain caused by the attack. It remains an open wound for our nation as a whole. We will continue to debate the causes and the characterization of that attack on Congress. However, members cannot dictate how others reference or interpret these events.


Se videoen: Marilyn u0026 JFK


Kommentarer:

  1. Kedal

    That beats me!

  2. Gariland

    Det sammen. Og med dette er jeg stødt på. Vi kan kommunikere om dette emne.

  3. Chinh

    er der noget lignende?

  4. Gogami

    I specially registered on the forum to say thank you for your help in this matter.

  5. Akinoshura

    Bravo, godt svar.

  6. Erland

    Der er noget i dette. I will know, thanks a lot for the explanation.



Skriv en besked