Republican Congressmen vote without being sworn in!

[Landslide Lyndon]

Good thing they read that Constitution thing, otherwise who knows what might have happened.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/two-house-republicans-vot_n_805423.html

WASHINGTON -- Two House Republicans have cast votes as members of the 112th Congress, but were not sworn in on Wednesday, a violation of the Constitution on the same day that the GOP had the document read from the podium.

The Republicans, incumbent Pete Sessions of Texas and freshman Mike Fitzpatrick, missed the swearing in, but watched it on television from the Capitol Visitors Center.

"That wasn't planned. It just worked out that way," said Fitzpatrick at the time, according to local press on hand, which noted that he "happened to be introducing Texas Congressman Pete Sessions while glad-handing his supporters in the Capitol Visitor Center that he secured for them when the House swearing in began."

There is no provision in the Constitution for a remote swearing-in by television. On Thursday, Fitzpatrick was one of the members who read the Constitution from the dais

On Thursday, the Rules Committee adjourned because Sessions had made a motion to open proceedings to begin considering the GOP bill to repeal health care reform - an action that can only be taken by an official member of Congress.

[Keystone Phil]

I always understood that you didn't actually have to be in the chamber to be sworn in. I was actually a few feet from Fitz and Sessions as they took the oath.

By the way, it wasn't a fundraiser; it was a reception for all of the people Fitz brought down to see the swearing in. Not surprising that Huffington would flat out lie. The donation was obviously to pay for the bus ride down as well as food and drink.

[Keystone Phil]

The DCCC spokeswoman's comment on the matter is even more ridiculous than the Huffington story...

“When Congressmen-elect Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick participated in reading parts of the U.S. Constitution on the House floor, Speaker Boehner should have given them Article 6 which requires Members of Congress to be sworn in,” Crider said. “Jokes aside, Congressmen-elect Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick’s actions raise serious questions: What in the world was more important to Congressmen-elect Pete Sessions and Mike Fitzpatrick than taking the oath of office, committing to support and defend  the U.S. Constitution? Why did Speaker Boehner and House Republican leadership allow two people who were not sworn Members of Congress to vote and speak on the House floor? Republicans have spent a lot of time over the past two days proselytizing about House rules, but they don’t seem very keen on actually following the rules.”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/congressmen-who-skipped-swearing-in-stall-gop-health-reform-repeal.html


This is one of the cheap political attacks that really has no defense. If you want to talk about them not following the rules - and, again, that is open to debate - then that's one thing but suggesting that they weren't doing something that was right when they were actually getting sworn in is eye roll worthy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

They goofed somewhat and they are being called on it.  That said, the precedent of Vice President William King makes it clear that if authorized there is no Constitutional barrier to being sworn in outside the House chamber, or for that matter outside the country.  However, King was granted a special wavier by law because of ill-health.  So what they did may have been a violation of House rules. In any case, glad-handing supporters instead of being in the chamber at the time of swearing in was a definite faux pas.

[tpfkaw]

OMG LYNDON JOHNSON WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT!  THAT MEANS EVERYTHING PASSED WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT IS ILLEGAL!

[Badger]

OMG LYNDON JOHNSON WAS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRESIDENT!  THAT MEANS EVERYTHING PASSED WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT IS ILLEGAL!

You wish.

[Keystone Phil]

In any case, glad-handing supporters instead of being in the chamber at the time of swearing in was a definite faux pas.

Personally, I would be in the chamber during the swearing in but this really isn't a big deal. He wasn't "glad-handing" supporters. This guy means a lot to them. He had bus loads of people come down for an event that an overwhelming majority of them have never seen. Everywhere we went that day, there were people with Fitz stickers on. When they say five hundred people were there, I doubt it was an exaggeration. Now if this swearing in did break the rules then the fact that they were there doesn't matter. I have little doubt, though, that they consulted with someone who knew the rules and it was allowed. The second swearing in just seems to be something done to avoid further controversy.

My point is that this was a very sincere gesture of gratitude. I guess you have to know them to understand. Not to say that other members don't have very dedicated supporters but the group that Fitz has is unlike anything I have ever seen before.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Did you even read the article?  Fitzpatrick had already taken it and re-took the oath as a precautionary measure...

"Yesterday, at the time the oath of office was administered, Congressman Fitzpatrick was in the Capitol Building meeting with constituents from Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District," Fitzpatrick spokesman Darren Smith said. "He took the oath of office at that time. When the oath was administered, Congressman Fitzpatrick had already signed the written oath of office provided by the Clerk of the House. Today, after speaking with the House Parliamentarian, out of an abundance of caution, Congressman Fitzpatrick was re-administered the oath of office by the Speaker. The public record will be adjusted accordingly."

[Keystone Phil]

Did you even read the article?  Fitzpatrick had already taken it and re-took the oath as a precautionary measure...

"Yesterday, at the time the oath of office was administered, Congressman Fitzpatrick was in the Capitol Building meeting with constituents from Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District," Fitzpatrick spokesman Darren Smith said. "He took the oath of office at that time. When the oath was administered, Congressman Fitzpatrick had already signed the written oath of office provided by the Clerk of the House. Today, after speaking with the House Parliamentarian, out of an abundance of caution, Congressman Fitzpatrick was re-administered the oath of office by the Speaker. The public record will be adjusted accordingly."

That's what I mentioned. The "controversy" here was that he wasn't in the chamber at the time and was sworn in with Sessions in front of a TV as Boehner gave the oath.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

In any case, glad-handing supporters instead of being in the chamber at the time of swearing in was a definite faux pas.

Personally, I would be in the chamber during the swearing in but this really isn't a big deal. He wasn't "glad-handing" supporters. This guy means a lot to them. He had bus loads of people come down for an event that an overwhelming majority of them have never seen. Everywhere we went that day, there were people with Fitz stickers on. When they say five hundred people were there, I doubt it was an exaggeration. Now if this swearing in did break the rules then the fact that they were there doesn't matter. I have little doubt, though, that they consulted with someone who knew the rules and it was allowed. The second swearing in just seems to be something done to avoid further controversy.

My point is that this was a very sincere gesture of gratitude. I guess you have to know them to understand. Not to say that other members don't have very dedicated supporters but the group that Fitz has is unlike anything I have ever seen before.

Sounds to me like he's already started his 2012 reelection campaign.  Not at all unusual that he's doing his all to keep his supporters happy, but most politicians don't let it interfere with attendance at major events, and for a Congressman, it doesn't get any more major than being sworn in.

[bullmoose88]

Unfortunate for Fitzpatrick its being spun this way

(Local bucks papers are reporting it as follows: http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/28/2011/january/06/fitzpatrick-swearing-in-gaffe-is-national-news.html )

They're also calling it a fundraiser.

At least Fitzpatrick fixed his faux pas (if it even was one) and even if its seen as a gaffe, it happened on day one...not closer to the 2012 elections.  Unfortunately, regardless of the truth he'll be the guy who missed the swearing in but if he avoids anything else then this should blow over.

[Keystone Phil]

In any case, glad-handing supporters instead of being in the chamber at the time of swearing in was a definite faux pas.

Personally, I would be in the chamber during the swearing in but this really isn't a big deal. He wasn't "glad-handing" supporters. This guy means a lot to them. He had bus loads of people come down for an event that an overwhelming majority of them have never seen. Everywhere we went that day, there were people with Fitz stickers on. When they say five hundred people were there, I doubt it was an exaggeration. Now if this swearing in did break the rules then the fact that they were there doesn't matter. I have little doubt, though, that they consulted with someone who knew the rules and it was allowed. The second swearing in just seems to be something done to avoid further controversy.

My point is that this was a very sincere gesture of gratitude. I guess you have to know them to understand. Not to say that other members don't have very dedicated supporters but the group that Fitz has is unlike anything I have ever seen before.

Sounds to me like he's already started his 2012 reelection campaign.  Not at all unusual that he's doing his all to keep his supporters happy, but most politicians don't let it interfere with attendance at major events, and for a Congressman, it doesn't get any more major than being sworn in.

But he was being sworn in so he didn't miss anything.

You and others want to make this out to some kiss ass event. This are people that have been with the guy for decades. It isn't about re-election. He'll have these people no matter what. A lot of them felt terribly about the 2006 result so this comeback had special meaning especially after what Fitz has been through personally (mainly his and his wife's health).

It's a non-issue but turned into a story because everyone likes an "oops!" moment especially if it's political.

What is really wrong about this is the "fundraiser" nonsense. Instead of eating at Fitz's event, I went right down the hall to one of the Capitol cafeteria's. For a sandwich, a few potatoes and a bottled water, I paid $17. I then forked over $40 for gas. It was perfectly fine for Fitz to ask for $30 from everyone for lunch and a bus ride. Now realize that there were about five hundred people there. There was nothing "fundraiser" about this.

[DrScholl]

Excuses, excuses. Rules aren't for Republicans, they are supreme beings above such silly things. How blasphemous of anyone to dare question them.

[Keystone Phil]

Excuses, excuses. Rules aren't for Republicans, they are supreme beings above such silly things. How blasphemous of anyone to dare question them.

Uh, did you read how this wasn't a breach of the rules? With everything else being debunked set aside, they both signed the oath that actually matters.

I wish that if you're going to try to make a non-issue a story that you'd do just a bit more research.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Excuses, excuses. Rules aren't for Republicans, they are supreme beings above such silly things. How blasphemous of anyone to dare question them.

If "rules aren't for Republicans," they would've just ignored this and kept voting.  They acknowledged the issue and fixed it.

You can't honestly tell me that every member should know the ins and outs of the entire House Rules are you?  That'd defeat the purpose of parliamentarians... it's a long document.  Nobody would be able to memorize the whole thing.

[Keystone Phil]

And the parliamentarian had them take it again just to make sure.

It's really unfortunate that people are trying to make this an actual attack, ignoring that Fitz and Sessions were actually taking the oath at the time/signed the oath that actually matters and were not fundraising in any way, shape or form. The guy does something nice for people and they're making it seem like he was personally profiting/had a campaign fundraiser. Terribly pathetic.

[DrScholl]

Uh, did you read how this wasn't a breach of the rules? With everything else being debunked set aside, they both signed the oath that actually matters.

I wish that if you're going to try to make a non-issue a story that you'd do just a bit more research.

It's matter of opinion if it's a non-issue. From what I've read, the swearing in's weren't proper. Of course it was corrected once it was revealed, but the rules were still broken in the first place. You just don't skip the swearing in and think that's okay.

If "rules aren't for Republicans," they would've just ignored this and kept voting.  They acknowledged the issue and fixed it.

You can't honestly tell me that every member should know the ins and outs of the entire House Rules are you?  That'd defeat the purpose of parliamentarians... it's a long document.  Nobody would be able to memorize the whole thing.

I would hope that members understand the rules of being sworn in.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Since I cannot yet find a full copy of the rules, I can't look it up, but how do you know that it requires them to be sworn in on the floor of the House?  How do you know that the signed copy of the oath wasn't enough to Constitutionally guarantee they're legitimate?

They were resworn in so that there was no doubt whatsoever, just like Obama was resworn in.  Sure, his initial oath was probably good enough, but if he hadn't resworn in, people would've always said, "He didn't really swear in!" and raised the issue.

This just kept people from being able to raise the issue that they might not have legitimately been sworn in.

[Meeker]

Amusing and mildly embarrassing. Beyond that, meh.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And the parliamentarian had them take it again just to make sure.

It's really unfortunate that people are trying to make this an actual attack, ignoring that Fitz and Sessions were actually taking the oath at the time/signed the oath that actually matters and were not fundraising in any way, shape or form. The guy does something nice for people and they're making it seem like he was personally profiting/had a campaign fundraiser. Terribly pathetic.

It doesn't really matter that they weren't soliciting checks right at that moment.  (Actually it does matter but not in the way I'm referring to, since they were on the Capitol grounds, even if they weren't in the House chamber itself, if they had been soliciting checks they would have been violating the law.) They put being with their supporters ahead of being in the House chamber to take the oath of office with every other Representative that day. Call me old-fashioned, but some things should be done in person, not virtually over a TV screen.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This will be the 112th Congress. Everyday another non issue blown out of proportion by far leftwing hack media types and the DCCC.

[Brittain33]

This will be the 112th Congress. Everyday another non issue blown out of proportion by far leftwing hack media types and the DCCC.

We are standing up to the tyranny of Congress! They don't represent me!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This will be the 112th Congress. Everyday another non issue blown out of proportion by far leftwing hack media types and the DCCC.

We are standing up to the tyranny of Congress! They don't represent me!

Now you know why we have the Senate.

[Keystone Phil]

It's matter of opinion if it's a non-issue. From what I've read, the swearing in's weren't proper. Of course it was corrected once it was revealed, but the rules were still broken in the first place. You just don't skip the swearing in and think that's okay.

From what you read in the articles posted, it seemed like it wasn't proper. Then you had people explain to you why these articles are just hype and why the swearing in was proper and you chose to ignore it. The swearing in wasn't skipped. They were sworn in at the time and the written oath - the one that actually mattered - was signed.

And the parliamentarian had them take it again just to make sure.

It's really unfortunate that people are trying to make this an actual attack, ignoring that Fitz and Sessions were actually taking the oath at the time/signed the oath that actually matters and were not fundraising in any way, shape or form. The guy does something nice for people and they're making it seem like he was personally profiting/had a campaign fundraiser. Terribly pathetic.

It doesn't really matter that they weren't soliciting checks right at that moment.  (Actually it does matter but not in the way I'm referring to, since they were on the Capitol grounds, even if they weren't in the House chamber itself, if they had been soliciting checks they would have been violating the law.) They put being with their supporters ahead of being in the House chamber to take the oath of office with every other Representative that day. Call me old-fashioned, but some things should be done in person, not virtually over a TV screen.

Money was being asked for and collected before hand in the district to pay for the bus ride down and food at the event.

Yes, I will call you old fashioned for saying it should be done on the floor. I don't necessarily agree with you but that's a matter of personal preference. If the rules weren't broken, it doesn't matter where they took the oath.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, I will call you old fashioned for saying it should be done on the floor. I don't necessarily agree with you but that's a matter of personal preference. If the rules weren't broken, it doesn't matter where they took the oath.

Then why have them assemble at all?  Let's have the Congress go all virtual and sell the Capitol buiilding to pay down the public debt.