Does expulsion from the House/Senate disqualify you from running again?

[Del Tachi]

Performing your Constitutional duty as a Member of Congress to certify the results of the electoral college cannot be an act of insurrection.  If a Democratic Congress passes something this egregious (which they won't), there's no way SCOTUS allows it.

[Del Tachi]

Performing your Constitutional duty as a Member of Congress to certify the results of the electoral college cannot be an act of insurrection.  If a Democratic Congress passes something this egregious (which they won't), there's no way SCOTUS allows it.

No, the congressional authority to expel & the invocation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment would clearly constitute a nonjusticiable political question. After all, the one time that it was invoked in such a manner as Democratic representatives like Cori Bush are proposing today was on the basis of a house of Congress' power to determine the qualifications of its members, something which the Courts have since determined in Powell v. McCormack that a chamber can give effect to through its power to expel. If the requisite 2/3rds majority of Congress needed to expel a member existed & summarily voted to do so on the basis that such a member's vote against certification of the Electoral College results constituted an "engage[ment] in insurrection," then that'd really be the plain-&-simple end of it. The courts wouldn't get to butt in & say "well, we agree that Congress has this power since the Constitution specifically says that they have this power, but we don't like that they exercised it in this instance," especially when the Constitution doesn't even define what technically constitutes an "insurrection" for the purposes of its invocation. Given all of this, I just don't see how this wouldn't play out similarly to (if not as a repeat of) Nixon v. United States, with the courts determining that they have no jurisdiction to review the expulsion of a member of Congress & the permanent disqualification thereof on the basis of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment since the Constitution reserves those functions to a coordinate political branch (in this case, Congress).

Congress has never expelled a member and then excluded that person from future service under the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of an exclusion under the amendment, or its interaction with Congress' separate Article I, Section 5 power to expel a member with a two-thirds vote (which is what your post is about.)  Someone who is excluded under this amendment would have a case in court, especially in the absence of a statute declaring voting against the certification of electors as an illegal act of insurrection (which would then be problematic if enforced retroactively.)

[Del Tachi]

This is also just a pretty dumb and stupid precedent to set.  Future Republican Congresses could expel Democrats who voted against military force authorizations as “aiding and abetting enemies.”

One has to also consider the spirit of the Speech and Debate Clause, which shields members of Congress from civil or criminal penalties stemming from their legislative activity.  It seems fascistic that votes taken or speech given in Congress (perhaps the most political category of speech imaginable) could be the basis of “insurrection” against the U.S. government. 

[Del Tachi]

This is also just a pretty dumb and stupid precedent to set.  Future Republican Congresses could expel Democrats who voted against military force authorizations as “aiding and abetting enemies.”

One has to also consider the spirit of the Speech and Debate Clause, which shields members of Congress from civil or criminal penalties stemming from their legislative activity.  It seems fascistic that votes taken or speech given in Congress (perhaps the most political category of speech imaginable) could be the basis of “insurrection” against the U.S. government. 

It's fantastic that someone would pretend they won reelection when they clearly didn't.  As I said, I don't see anyone being expelled just because of how they voted on whether to certify. Also the Speech or Debate Clause only covers what is said on the floor or in committee. It certainly doesn't cover social media posts or campaign rallies.

That is exactly what Cori Bush's resolution (with 54 Democratic co-sponsors as of this morning) call for.

Let's just face the facts, Democrats are abandoning the basic principle of parliamentary privilege that has guided democratic government for 400+ years. 

[Del Tachi]

This is also just a pretty dumb and stupid precedent to set.  Future Republican Congresses could expel Democrats who voted against military force authorizations as “aiding and abetting enemies.”

One has to also consider the spirit of the Speech and Debate Clause, which shields members of Congress from civil or criminal penalties stemming from their legislative activity.  It seems fascistic that votes taken or speech given in Congress (perhaps the most political category of speech imaginable) could be the basis of “insurrection” against the U.S. government. 

It's fantastic that someone would pretend they won reelection when they clearly didn't.  As I said, I don't see anyone being expelled just because of how they voted on whether to certify. Also the Speech or Debate Clause only covers what is said on the floor or in committee. It certainly doesn't cover social media posts or campaign rallies.

That is exactly what Cori Bush's resolution (with 54 Democratic co-sponsors as of this morning) call for.

Let's just face the facts, Democrats are abandoning the basic principle of parliamentary privilege that has guided democratic government for 400+ years. 

Y'know, if you're gonna try & claim that 24.8% of the Democratic caucus supporting something amounts to Democrats in general "abandoning the basic principle of parliamentary privilege that has guided democratic government for 400+ years," then you're just opening yourself up to somebody clapping back by pointing out that 65.4% of the Republican conference is in favor of literally abandoning the 400+ year-old basic principle that is democratic government, given their involvement in the Texas lawsuit & then their votes to uphold the baseless EC objections, but that's obviously none of my business

Norms are norms, no matter who violates them.  Find where I've voiced any support for Trump's election challenges and GOP efforts to satisfy them