Little-known House maneuver could block socialists from taking their seats in Congress

THE DAILY BS: HOW MUCH CAN YOU HANDLE?

SPARE ME THE BS (I’ve got things to do)

Rep. Keith Self has raised questions about swearing in Democratic Socialist lawmakers whose organization proposes replacing major constitutional structures.
Rep. Tim Burchett discussed challenging socialist congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier.
The Supreme Court’s 1969 Powell v. McCormack decision imposes serious limits on the House’s power to exclude duly elected members.

LAY IT ON ME (I’ve got time)

Washington has produced an unusual constitutional question: Can you promise to defend the Constitution while belonging to a political organization that wants to replace major parts of it?

Republican Rep. Keith Self of Texas raised the issue as lawmakers considered whether incoming Democratic Socialists of America members could face challenges before taking the oath. The DSA platform advocates fundamental changes to the structure of American government, including abolishing the Senate and restructuring executive and judicial institutions.

‘You cannot swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution while actively working to destroy it,’ Self told Fox News. His point is that the oath is not merely ceremonial. That’s an argument destined to occupy constitutional lawyers long after the campaign flyers have disappeared.

A conservative Center for Renewing America analysis outlined a possible procedure in which an incoming member could object, present documentary evidence and seek a House vote on administering another member-elect’s oath.

Tennessee Republican Tim Burchett has discussed challenging Darializa Avila Chevalier, pointing to an old social-media post about using an American flag as a napkin. Disrespecting the flag and failing to meet constitutional qualifications for office, however, are quite different legal questions.

Here’s the formidable catch. In Powell v. McCormack, the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that the House cannot simply invent qualifications beyond those enumerated in the Constitution to exclude an otherwise duly elected member. That precedent is not a minor procedural speed bump.

The Constitution specifies age, citizenship and state residency requirements for House membership, and separately provides a two-thirds process for expelling members. Advocating lawful constitutional amendments also differs from refusing to obey the current Constitution.

Speaker Mike Johnson has dismissed suggestions that Republicans would simply refuse to seat elected Democrats. ‘We are going to follow the law,’ he said.

So this remains a proposed strategy, not a court-approved method for barring socialists from office. Still, it’s a striking debate: one group wants a major constitutional renovation; its critics want to know whether the builders can swear to protect the existing structure while they’re holding the wrecking plans.