CONGRESSIONAL BAD ACTORS: CAN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH POLICE ITSELF?

As President Biden pursues his agenda, Congress finds itself distracted by the behavior of

some of its Republican members. Democrats fear some Republicans may incite violence or even threaten their personal safety. Resolutions that would expel or censure Republican members have been introduced in both houses. A bipartisan vote stripped one GOP representative of her committee assignments because of her outrageous statements. The situation grows tenser by the day. 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared that threats “from within” exist in the House of Representative. 

Some Republicans want to take guns onto the floor and have refused to go through metal detectors installed outside the House chamber.     Danger from outside forces remains. Capitol police propose making permanent the fencing installed around the Capitol grounds for

the presidential inauguration. Meantime, the investigation into the January 6 insurrection seemingly turns up new and disturbing evidence every day.

The Greene Case

Freshman Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia got elected after suggesting the

execution of Pelosi, making threats against other Democrats, claiming that September 11 never happened, and denying the truth of school shootings, including the Parkland, Florida carnage in which 17 people died and 17 others were injured. Greene, an adherent of the QAnon

conspiracy movement, made other outlandish statements, including that lasers controlled by a Jewish-run company started wild fires in California.

Democrats urged that House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy strip Greene of her education and budget committee assignments, but he declined. Despite saying she regretted some of her statements, Greene lost her committee assignments on a vote of 230-199, with all Democrats and 11 Republicans voting in the affirmative.

“Disorderly Behaviour”

Article 1, section 5 of the United States 

Constitution gives each house of Congress power to regulate the conduct of its members. Both the House and the Senate can discipline members who engage in “disorderly Behaviour.” Punishment can include expulsion from Congress, though more often both houses have “censured” members for bad conduct. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote, while a censure resolution needs only majority approval.

Fifteen senators have been expelled, the last in 

1862. Six were thrown out in 1797 for treason in connection with inciting participation of Native-American tribes in a British invasion of Florida. The other nine, kicked out in 1861 and 1862, supported the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Nine senators, most notably Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, have been censured

for conduct that brought the Senate into dishonor and disrepute. Expulsion and censure cases have been prosecuted for abuse of office, fighting in the senate chamber, financial irregularities, sexual misconduct, and other bad acts. Very often, especially in recent times, senators brought up for expulsion or censure have resigned before senate action. Three members facing such sanctions since 1980 all resigned first.

In the House, 23 members have been censured, five since 1966. The House has expelled five members, two in the modern era. Michael Meyers was kicked out in 1980 on a 376-30 vote after a bribery conviction. James Traficant got his walking papers in 2002 by a vote of 420-1 following

convictions for conspiracy to commit bribery, defrauding the United States, obstruction of justice, and filing false tax returns. Three previous expulsions from the House, all in 1861, involved disloyalty by fighting for the Confederacy.

What’s Enough?

While it’s clear Congress can regulate its membership, the history of expulsion and censure raises the question of whether Congress needs criminal convictions before taking action against misbehaving members. In the House, that appears to have been the case, at least recently. Both expulsions in the 20^th and 21^st centuries came after convictions for real law breaking. The constitution doesn’t say criminal convictions must precede expulsion or censure, but Congress, especially the House, seems to have needed that in recent years before acting.

The Senate history presents a different picture, but one relevant to today. The 15 senators thrown out participated in inciting violence against the United States or its interests.  Given the events of January 6, Congress now may have to decide if threatening a member rises to the necessary level for action. 

How Did We Get Here?

Former President Donald Trump and compliant,

cowering Republican leaders justifiably get much of the blame. While we’d guess the impeachment trial won’t result in a conviction, we also believe the likely surge of civil and criminal cases against Trump will reveal the depth of his seditious behavior. Those cases, probably not tried until 2022 and 2023, should reveal just how far he stooped and how close the United States came to becoming a dictatorship, not a democracy.

But blaming Trump and his enablers isn’t enough. His rise to the presidency indicates a fundamental sickness in our society it may take years to eradicate. Because much of his appeal rests on anger and white supremacy, which have been with us since the beginning of the republic, it’s possible we won’t rid ourselves of this problem in the lifetime of anyone alive today. 

The congressional response to the threat of violence from both inside and outside the Capitol could say a good deal about the resolve of the nation to eliminate the abhorrent behavior that plagues so much of our politics. Things we could have never imagined now seem normal. Congress

can throw out members who make violence and the threat of violence part of their portfolios. History, however, shows senators and representatives have only reluctantly used that power. Now, it appears, we live in different times – times that call for a more aggressive use of that authority. 

THE BIDEN-HARRIS INAUGURAL: FOR WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO RECEIVE

 

The last episode of the great television drama The West Wing centers around the inauguration of Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits) as successor to the show’s two-term president, Jeb Bartlett (Martin Sheen). While riding to the capitol, Bartlett asked Santos about his speech. Santos replied that it included a few good lines, but nothing like John F. Kennedy’s ‘Ask not what your county can do for you, but what you can do for your country.’ Bartlett sneered, “Yeah, JFK really screwed us with that one, didn’t he?”

When Joe Biden delivers his inaugural address, it’s unlikely he can meet the JFK standard either. Nobody has since that bitterly cold day in 1961 and little in Biden’s rhetorical past suggests he has such a speech in him. That doesn’t diminish the importance of the moment or the address he will give.

 

A Different Inaugural

Few inaugurals in American history present the combination of challenges this one does. Perhaps this resembles 1933 as Franklin Roosevelt faced the great depression. Maybe 1864 compares when the nation remained deadlocked in the Civil War. Knowing Biden could do as well as Abraham Lincoln that day would put everyone’s mind at ease.

With the January 6 invasion and occupation of the U.S. Capitol by a mob inspired by outgoing President Donald Trump, our political situation arguably rivals what Lincoln faced. These marauders, having builtgallows outside, marched through the building waving Confederate flags and shouting “Hang (Vice President) Pence.” The House of Representatives has since impeached Trump for his role in the insurrection and the U.S. Senate will soon hold a trial.  Add the pandemic that has killed 400,000 Americans and still rages and throw in the historic nature of the new vice president’s ascent and we have a truly unprecedented situation.

The January 6 debacle means a massive security presence at the capitol for the

inaugural ceremonies, including thousands of National Guard troops, tall fences, concrete barriers, and multiple checkpoints for capitol employees and the limited number of visitors who can attend the festivities. Inaugurals play a key role in showing the nation and the world what a peaceful transition of power looks like in a

democracy. Trump’s decision that he won’t attend diminishes that to an extent, but even the symbolic power of an appearance by the outgoing president pales in comparison with the need for putting the destructive Trump presidency in the rear-view mirror. Biden now doesn’t want him at the inaugural and neither do many Americans.

   

The security arrangements and the pandemic dictate that this inauguration

look different than any we’ve seen. First, thousands of people won’t look on from the capitol mall. Though Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris will take their oaths of office on the capitol steps as usual, social distancing will keep attendance at a fraction of normal. Biden’s inaugural committee has told his supporters they shouldn’t travel from across the country for the proceedings, recommending television or virtual viewing.

 

The Harris Factor

The challenges of the nation’s political divide, Trump’s impeachment, the pandemic, and the resulting economic difficulties will justifiably make Biden’s speech the lead in every post-inauguration news story. Calmer circumstances would likely mean more emphasis on the swearing in of the nation’s

first female president or vice president. Kamala Devin Harris of California will make that history when she takes the oath of office as the 49^th vice president. That she is also a woman of color only increases the historical significance. Trump’s blatantly racist presidency and the number of Americans who would have given him a second term squash any suggestion her election hails a post-racial America.

 

Biden says she will play the same kind of role in this administration he played in the Obama-Biden years. He promises he will consult her on every major decision and make her the “last person in the room” in those situations.

 

The Speech and the Job Ahead

Harris will stay busy presiding over the senate following Democratic victories in Georgia runoffs that made the upper chamber a 50-50 party split. The incoming administration has plenty on its plate. Biden and Harris emphasize how much they will focus on the pandemic. As one observer put it, the coronavirus remains the “boss” of everything and everybody. Until the country gets it under control the things ordinary Americans most want can’t happen -- an economic revival and a return to normal life unfettered by social distancing,fan-less sporting events, and restrictions on family and  other gatherings. The pandemic, the limping economy, the political and racial divisions January 6 so starkly demonstrated, and the country’s fragile psyche make for a long, complicated to-do list.

      

Biden’s speech, therefore, requires substantive and spiritual components. Substantively, he need not provide every detail, but he should offer an outline for conquering the pressing problems, including the need for restoring the hollowed out federal government Trump leaves him. He must convince people he will work for them and show he will govern in a way that benefits everyone.

 

The moment also requires a speech that touches souls. It must offer hope for renewing the American spirit. After four years of a lawless, destructive presidency marked by racial discord and political turmoil, a bitter campaign, and a dangerous, tumultuous lame duck period, Biden faces a tired, discouraged, and distraught country.

 

Inaugurals serve many functions. They

represent renewal  and new beginnings. They also put American democracy on the world 

stage and advertise the virtues of our system. January 6  and Trump’s four years

dimmed our brand. America’s first chance at polishing its image comes with the Biden-Harris inaugural. Even with an 

dimmed our brand. America’s first chance at polishing its image comes with the Biden-Harris inaugural. Even with an impeachment proceeding against Trump pending in the U.S. Senate, a little JFK-style inspiration might help.