USA senaatori esimene umbusaldus

USA senaatori esimene umbusaldus



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.

Massachusettsi föderalistist senaatorist Timothy Pickeringist saab esimene senaator, keda on taunitud, kui senat kinnitab tema vastu umbusaldusavalduse häältega 20: 7. Pickeringit süüdistati kongressiseaduse rikkumises, kuna ta avalikustas avalikult presidendi senatile edastatud salajased dokumendid.

Revolutsioonisõja ajal töötas Pickering kindral George Washingtoni kindraladjutandina ja aastal 1791 nimetas president Washington kindralpostimeistriks. Aastal 1795 töötas ta lühidalt Washingtoni sõjasekretärina, enne kui ta määrati riigisekretäriks 1795. aastal. Ta säilitas oma ametikoha president John Adamsi juhtimisel, kuid vabastati ametist 1800. aastal, kui mõõdukas föderalist Adams sai teada, et ta oli plaaninud koos Alexander Hamiltoniga, et juhtida USA sõtta revolutsioonilise Prantsusmaaga. Naastes Massachusettsi, valiti ta USA senaatoriks, kuid astus tagasi pärast seda, kui teda süüdistati presidendi Kongressile saadetud välispoliitiliste dokumentide avalikuks toomise eest. 1812. aasta sõja sõnaselge vastane Pickering valiti 1813. aastal Massachusettsi esindajaks ja teenis enne poliitikast taandumist kaks ametiaega.


Senaatorite otsene valimine

Valijad on valinud oma senaatoreid hääletuskabiini privaatsuses alates aastast 1913. Põhiseaduse koostajad ei kavatsenud aga senaatoreid sellisel viisil valida ja lisada I artikli 3. jaotisesse „USA senat koosneb kahest senaatorist igast osariigist, kelle seadusandja on kuueks aastaks valinud, ja igal senaatoril on üks hääl. " Põhiseaduse konventsiooni delegaatide valimine lõi pretsedendi riikide valimiseks. Koostajad uskusid, et senaatorite valimisel tugevdavad osariigi seadusandjad oma sidet riigi valitsusega, mis suurendab põhiseaduse ratifitseerimise võimalusi. Samuti ootasid nad, et osariikide seadusandjate valitud senaatorid suudavad ilma elanike surveteta keskenduda käimasolevale ettevõtlusele.

See protsess tundus hästi toimivat kuni 1850. aastate keskpaigani. Sel ajal põhjustas erinevates osariikides kasvav vaenutegevus senati kohti. Näiteks Indianas takistas osariigi lõuna poole demokraatide ja põhjapoolses tärkava Vabariikliku Partei vaheline konflikt ühegi kandidaadi valimist, jättes seega senati koha kaheks aastaks vabaks. See tähistas paljude vastuoluliste lahingute algust osariikide seadusandlikes kogudes, sest võitlus senaatorite valimiseks peegeldas üha suurenevaid pingeid orjuse ja osariikide õiguste pärast, mis viisid kodusõjani.

Pärast kodusõda suurenesid osariikide seadusandjate probleemid senaatorivalimistel. Ühel juhul vaidlustati 1860ndate lõpus New Jersey senaatori John Stocktoni valimine põhjusel, et ta valiti osariigi seadusandlikus koosseisus pigem paljususe kui häälteenamusega. Stockton tugines oma kaitsele tähelepanekuga, et mitte kõik osariigid ei valinud oma senaatoreid ühtemoodi ja esitas raporti, mis illustreeris senaatorite osariikide valimiste ebajärjekindlust. Vastuseks võttis Kongress 1866. aastal vastu seaduse, mis reguleerib, kuidas ja millal igas osariigis senaatorid valiti. See oli esimene muutus asutajate loodud senaatorivalimiste protsessis. Seadus aitas probleemi, kuid ei lahendanud seda täielikult ning ummikseisud tekitasid mõnes seadusandjas jätkuvalt mõningaid senati kohti.

Hirmutamine ja altkäemaksu andmine tähistasid osariikide senaatorite valikut. Aastatel 1866–1906 esitati senatile üheksa altkäemaksu juhtumit. Lisaks toimus ajavahemikus 1891–1905 20 osariigis 45 ummikseisu, mille tulemuseks oli senaatorite istekohtade arvukas viivitamine. 1899. aastal olid Delaware'is senaatori valimisega seotud probleemid nii teravad, et osariigi seadusandja ei saatnud senaatorit nelja aastaks Washingtoni.

Reformi hoog sai alguse juba 1826. aastal, kui esmakordselt tehti ettepanek senaatorite otseseks valimiseks. 1870. aastatel saatsid valijad Esindajatekojale avalduse rahvahääletuste korraldamiseks. Aastatel 1893–1902 suurenes hoog märkimisväärselt. Sel perioodil tehti igal aastal Kongressis ettepanek põhiseaduse muutmiseks senaatorite valimiseks rahvahääletuse teel, kuid senat seisis muutustele raevukalt vastu, hoolimata sagedastest vabadest kohtadest ja vaidlustatud valimistulemustest. 1890. aastate keskel lülitas Populistlik Partei senaatorite otsese valimise oma parteiplatvormi, kuigi ei demokraadid ega vabariiklased ei pööranud toona erilist tähelepanu. 1900. aastate alguses algatas üks osariik ise muudatusi. Oregon oli otseste valimiste teerajaja ja katsetas mitme aasta jooksul erinevaid meetmeid, kuni see 1907. aastal õnnestus. Varsti pärast seda järgis Nebraska eeskuju ja pani aluse teistele osariikidele, et võtta vastu rahva tahet kajastavad meetmed. Reformidel vastu seisnud senaatoritel oli raske ignoreerida senaatorite otsese valimise kasvavat toetust.

Pärast sajandivahetust kasvas hoog reformide jaoks kiiresti. William Randolph Hearst laiendas oma kirjastamisimpeeriumi Kosmopoliitne ja võitles otseste valimiste põhjuse üle muukivate artiklite ja jõulise reformi propageerimisega. Hearst palkas veteranreporteri David Graham Phillipsi, kes kirjutas senaatoritele räsivaid tükke, kujutades neid töösturite ja rahastajate etturina. Tükkidest sai sari pealkirjaga "Senati riigireetmine", mis ilmus ajakirja mitmetes igakuistes numbrites 1906. aastal. Need artiklid andsid avalikkusele jõudu senati reformimiseks survestamiseks.

Üha enam valiti senaatoreid osariigi rahvahääletuste põhjal, sarnaselt Oregoni välja töötatud vahenditega. 1912. aastaks valis koguni 29 osariiki senaatoreid kas oma partei eelvalimistel või üldvalimistel. Otsevalimisprotsessi esindajatena toetasid uued senaatorid meetmeid, mis toetasid föderaalseadust, kuid reformi saavutamiseks oli vaja põhiseaduse muudatust. Aastal 1911 pakkus Kansase senaator Joseph Bristow välja põhiseaduse muutmise ettepaneku. Ideed toetas ka Idaho senaator William Borah, kes ise oli otseste valimiste tulemus. Kaheksa lõuna senaatorit ja kõik vabariiklaste senaatorid New Englandist, New Yorgist ja Pennsylvaniast olid senaator Bristowi otsuse vastu. Senat kiitis resolutsiooni heaks suuresti tänu riigi algatatud reformidega valitud senaatoritele, kellest paljud olid ametis esimest ametiaega ja seetõttu võisid nad olla rohkem valmis otseseid valimisi toetama. Pärast seda, kui senat võttis muudatusettepaneku vastu, mis kujutas endast aastakümneid kestnud arutelu kulminatsiooni, kolis meede Esindajatekojale.

Esialgselt ei läinud parlamendil muudatusettepaneku esmastel aruteludel paremini kui senatil. Vaidlusi iseloomustas palju vaidlusi, kuid 1912. aasta suvel võttis parlament lõpuks muudatuse vastu ja saatis selle osariikidele ratifitseerimiseks. Avaliku toetuse kampaaniat aitasid kaasa senaatorid nagu Borah ja politoloog George H. Haynes, kelle teaduslik töö senati kallal aitas seadusemuudatuse vastuvõtmisel palju kaasa.

Connecticuti heakskiit 8. aprillil 1913 andis seitsmeteistkümnenda muudatuse jõustumiseks vajaliku kolme neljandiku häälteenamuse. Järgmisel aastal toimusid esimest korda kõik senaatorivalimised rahvahääletusel.

Seitsmeteistkümnes muudatus kordab põhiseaduse I artikli 3. jao esimest lõiku ja näeb ette senaatorite valimise, asendades fraasi „selle seadusandliku koosseisu valitud” sõnaga „selle rahva poolt valitud”. Lisaks võimaldab see iga osariigi kuberneril või täitevvõimul, kui selle riigi seadusandja seda lubab, ametisse nimetada senaatori vabade kohtade korral kuni üldvalimisteni.

USA põhiseaduse seitsmeteistkümnes muudatus:

Ameerika Ühendriikide senat koosneb kahest senaatorist igast osariigist, mille valivad nende inimesed kuueks aastaks, ja igal senaatoril on üks hääl. Iga riigi valijatel peab olema osariigi seadusandlike organite valijate jaoks vajalik kvalifikatsioon.

Kui vabad töökohad ilmnevad mõne riigi esinduses senatis, väljastab selle riigi täidesaatev võim nende täitmiseks valimiskirjad: tingimusel, et mis tahes riigi seadusandja võib volitada selle täitevvõimu ajutisi ametisse nimetamisi, kuni rahvas saab täis vabad kohad valimiste teel, nagu seadusandja võib suunata.

Seda muudatust ei tohi tõlgendada nii, et see mõjutaks ühegi senaatori valimist või ametiaega enne selle jõustumist põhiseaduse osana.


Henry Clay ’s eraldusvõime Andrew Jackson (1834)

28. märtsil 1834 hääletas Whigi kontrolli all olev senat president Andrew Jacksoni umbusaldamiseks 26-20. See tegu oli USA ajaloos täiesti pretsedenditu. Lõplik umbusaldusotsus, viimane senaator Henry Clay esitatud süüdistuste eelnõude seerias, on järgmine: “Argustatud, et president hilinenud täidesaatva menetluse käigus seoses avalike tuludega võttis endale volituse ja võimu mitte anda #8217d põhiseaduse ja seadustega, kuid erandina mõlemast ”:

Jacksoni sõprade sõnul oli see umbusaldusotsus põhiseadusest erand. Kui Jacksoni tegevus oleks nii ränk, siis toetaksid tsenseerivad senaatorid kindlasti tagandamispüüdlusi? Ometi olid nad kõik 26 otsustanud Jacksoni süü, kui kohtuprotsess tegelikult aset leidis. Nad olid seadnud end süüdistajateks, kohtunikeks ja vandekohtunikeks. Kuid nagu kõik teadsid, oli senat otsustanud Jacksoni umbusaldada just seetõttu, et tagandamine ei olnud poliitiline võimalus. Demokraadid kontrollisid parlamenti ja moodustasid senati rohkem kui kolmandiku, seega ei olnud tagandamine mitte alustav. See ei olnud eelarvamuste laengule väga põhimõtteline vastus, kuid võttis tegelikkusega piisavalt arvesse.

Jacksonians juhtis tähelepanu ka sellele, et põhiseaduses ei mainitud umbusaldust kusagil. Whigs möönis, et kongress sai kasutada ainult talle delegeeritud volitusi, kuid nad raamistasid asja teisiti. Savi umbusaldusotsus ei olnud seadusandlus ja senat avaldas lihtsalt oma institutsioonilist arvamust kõrge poliitilise ja põhiseadusliku tähtsusega küsimuses. Kus täpselt see keelatud oli?

Mida oli Jackson teinud ja#8220 hilinenud täidesaatva menetluse käigus seoses avalike tuludega, et väärida sellist ärevat sõnakuulmatust? Vahetu põhjus oli Jacksoni keeldumine esitamast piisavalt dokumente, mis olid seotud tema enneaegse lämbumisega Ameerika Ühendriikide teises pangas. Kuid tegelik probleem oli muidugi kägistamine ise ja#8212Jackson oli andnud oma rahandussekretärile korralduse 1833. aastal pangast riiklikud hoiused eemaldada, tühistades tegelikult selle juriidilise asutamise (panga harta lõppes 1836. aastal). Clay ja ettevõte olid ka kohkunud, et Jackson nõudis kahe riigikassa sekretäri tagasiastumist muul põhjusel kui sellepärast, et nad keeldusid poliitikat täitmast, mis arvati olevat erandiks Kongressi aktist.

Erinevad resolutsioonid, mida Clay õige keele leidmisel pakub, kinnitatakse suuremale paberilehele, et luua omamoodi senaatori hukkamõistu kollaaž. Prototüüp oli oma etteheites vähem kaldu kui lõpptoode. Siin ’s Clay ’s algne kaheosaline umbusaldusvõime:

𔄙st. Otsustas, et lahkudes lahkunud riigikassa sekretäri, sest ta ei eemalda vastupidiselt oma kohusetundele USA raha USA pangas ja selle filiaalides, järgides presidendi arvamust ja määrates oma ametijärglase selliseks tagasiastumiseks, mis on tehtud, on president võtnud endale võimu teostamise USA riigikassa üle, mida talle ei ole antud põhiseaduse ja seadustega, ning ohtlik rahva vabadustele.

2d. Otsustas, et riigikassa sekretäri [Roger Taney] määratud põhjused, mille kohaselt Ameerika Ühendriikide Panka ja selle filiaalidesse hoiustatud USA raha välja võeti, edastati kongressile detsembri kolmandal päeval 1833, on ebarahuldavad ja ebapiisavad. ”

Siin on muudetud versioon (vabandan halva kvaliteedi pärast):

“Otsustas, et võttes endale kohustuse eemaldada Ameerika Ühendriikide Pangalt avaliku raha hoiused, on USA president võtnud kasutusele võimu USA riigikassa üle, seda ei ole ette nähtud talle põhiseaduse ja seaduste järgi ning ohtlik rahva vabadustele. ”

Lõplikus umbusaldusotsuses puudus igasugune põhjendus seisukohale, et Jackson kasutas võimu, mida talle põhiseadus ja seadused ei andnud, ning väitele, et tema tegevus on inimeste vabadustele ohtlik. -versioon oli Jacksonile esitatud väide rikutud Ameerika Ühendriikide põhiseadust ja seadusi lisaks neile mitte antud võimu teostamisele.

Tagakülg näeb välja selline:

President Jackson vastas sama enneolematult: ta protesteeris ametlikult senati umbusaldusotsuse vastu. Veel ühe ajaloolise esikoha puhul keeldus senat lihtsalt presidendi sõnumit vastu võtmast ja seda ajakirjas trükkimast.

Thomas Hart Benton, kes ’d kord Nashville'is Jacksoni esitas, juhtis senatis liikumist, et umbusaldusotsus Senate Journalist kustutada. (Te arvasite, et ka midagi sellist pole kunagi juhtunud.) Demokraatidel oli peagi väljasaatmiseks piisavalt hääli ja see toiming tehti 16. jaanuaril 1837. Kui umbusaldus oli põhiseadusega vastuolus, oli selle salvestuse kustutamine vaieldamatult põhiseadusega vastuolus. Artikli I jaotis 5 ja koda peavad oma toimetiste päevikut ja avaldavad seda aeg -ajalt. . . ja mõlema koja liikmete aastad ja päevad mis tahes küsimuses. . . ja#8221 ma arvan, et jacksonlased olid rahul sellega, et nad said oma vaenlaste ja#8217 süütegude eest hoolt kanda, kui see kuriteo tühistas.


Umbusaldus

Kuigi umbusaldus tuleneb ka samast põhiseadusklauslist, ei ole see termin, mida Framers sõnaselgelt mainis. 3

Umbusaldus ei eemalda liiget ametist. Kui täiskogu on sanktsiooni poolthäälteenamusega heaks kiitnud, peab tsenseeritud liige seisma täiskogu kaevus („koja baar” oli 19. sajandi ametiaeg), samal ajal kui spiiker või eesistuja loeb ette umbusaldusotsuse ja selle preambuli avaliku etteheite vormina.

Aastakümneid enne, kui täiskogu parlamendiliikmed esimest korda välja saatis, kaalus ta umbusaldust, et registreerida oma sügavat pahameelt parlamendiliikme käitumise suhtes. Täiskogu pidas oma eksistentsi alguses (kuid ei kasutanud seda) umbusaldust, et karistada Matthew Lyoni Vermontist ja Roger Griswoldit Connecticutist 1798. aasta alguses avalikustatud dekoratsioonirikkumiste eest. Lyon oli Griswoldile sülitanud tulise vaidluse ajal ja kui Maja keeldus hiljem Vermonterit välja saatmast või umbusaldust avaldamast, Griswold püüdis oma au kaitsta, pannes ta oma laua taha. Sellest "rüvetamisest" süütu koja asutas vahejuhtumit uurima privileegide komitee, ehkki keeldus lõpuks karistust soovitamast pärast seda, kui mõlemad mehed lubasid "rahu säilitada".

Eriti üheksateistkümnendal sajandil, kui poliitikud võitlesid duellidega oma au ja maine kahjustamise pärast, tekkis umbusaldus kui vahend parlamendiliikme aususe tõhusaks vaidlustamiseks. Alates 1830. aastate algusest kuni 1860. aastate lõpuni mõistis täiskogu üksikisikuid ette vastuvõetamatu käitumise eest, mis leidis aset suures osas põrandateemalise arutelu ajal. Esimest korda täiskogu tsiteeris ühte oma 1882. aastal, kui Ohio osariigi William Stanbery solvas Virginia spiikerit Andrew Stevensoni. Kuid kuna need üleastumised ei jõudnud väljasaatmise tasemele, nõudis parlamendi praktika lihthäälteenamust kohalviibivate ja hääletavate liikmete otsuse kohta.


Mida tähendab poliitikut umbusaldada?

Kui president Donald Trumpi tagandamise uurimine jõuab uuele kuulamisvoorule, on arutatud ühte ideed, kuidas presidendi vastu süüdistuse ja umbusalduse puudumisel välja tulla.

Umbusaldus on ametlik tagasilükkamine, mille võib vastu võtta üks kongressikoda või mõlemad. Erinevalt süüdistamisest ei ole umbusaldus põhiseadusest tulenev võim, ütles St. Louis'i Washingtoni ülikooli õiguse professor Gregory Magarian. Esindajatekoda ja senat on vastu võtnud sise -eeskirjad, mis võimaldavad neil koostada ja heaks kiita umbusaldusotsuse, mis annab avaliku hinnangu ametniku tegevuse vastu. Selline resolutsioon on etteheide, kuid sellega ei kaasne materiaalseid karistusi nagu ametist tagandamine.

Miks me räägime pigem umbusaldusest kui tagandamisest?

Süüdistamine ja sellele järgnev ametist tagandamine on lõplikud karistused, mida seadusandjad saavad presidendile määrata. Demokraatide juhitud koda teeb tõenäoliselt Trumpi süüdistuse, kuid vabariiklaste juhitud senat tõenäoliselt ei eemalda teda ametist. Trumpi Ukrainaga suhtlemise uurimise keskel on süüdistuse alternatiivina arutatud umbusaldust õigusekspertide ja seadusandjate seas. Demokraadid võivad minna presidendi tegevuse vastu, ilma senati kohtuprotsessil kaotamata.

"Uurimine, millele järgnes uurimise põhjal tehtud umbusalduse resolutsioon, jätaks demokraadid tugevamale positsioonile kui nad oleksid, kui nad selle senatile üle annaksid ja läbiksid nelja kuni kuue nädala pikkuse segase protsessi," ütles William Galston. ütles Brookings Institutioni valitsemise uuringute vanemteadur, ütles PBS NewsHour.

Galston väitis, et senati võimalik kohtuprotsess võib häirida demokraatide eelvalimisi ja lubada Trumpil kasutada tagandamist, et avalikkusele sümpaatne narratiiv esitada enne oma tagasivalimispakkumist.

Umbusaldus nõuab väiksemaid investeeringuid kui tagandamine, ütles Loyola Marymount'i ülikooli õigusprofessor Jessica Levinson. See ei nõua kongressilt istungite korraldamist ega oma väite avalikkusele tõendamist. Kuid seadusandjad võivad jätkata, avaldades oma pahameelt.

Kas Kongress on kunagi presidenti hukka mõistnud?

Kongressi uurimisteenistuse andmetel on senati resolutsioon Andrew Jacksoni vastu 1834. aastal „selgeim näide edukast presidendi umbusaldusest”. Seadusandjad asusid Jacksoni umbusaldama, kuna ta ei pidanud kinni seadusandjate taotletud dokumente, mis on seotud tema otsusega tühistada USA teine ​​pank. Sagedamini võtavad kongress või osariigi seadusandjad umbusaldusotsused teiste seadusandjate karistamiseks.

Kui rääkida presidentidest, siis umbusaldus hõivab hämara territooriumi, ütles magarlane PBS NewsHourile. "Minu sisetunne on, et umbusaldus on korraga liiga võimas ja jõuetu," ütles ta. „Ühest küljest on see institutsiooniliste normide kohaselt suurim negatiivne avaldus, mida kongressikoda võib presidendi või kellegi teise vastu esitada. … Teisest küljest on arvatavasti suur võitlus, et saada umbusaldus ja päeva lõpuks ei pruugi see midagi muuta. ”

Siiski ütles ta, et umbusaldus oleks vähem vaevarikas protsess kui senati kohtuprotsess.

Kas Trumpi vastu võib veel tsenseerida?

Eksperdid näivad olevat segaduses, kas umbusaldusest oleks demokraatidele süüdistuse uurimise praeguses etapis kasu.

Galston väidab, et demokraatide jaoks oleks kõige soodsam valik olnud algusest peale edasi liikuda umbusaldusega tagandamise üle.

Levinson ütles, et umbusaldusel on tagandamise eelkäijana mõttekam. "Oleme juba järgmise sammu juures," ütles Levinson. Kui seadusandjad hääletavad tagandamist käsitlevate artiklite üle, "on see palju draakonlikum vastus," lisas ta.

Seadusandjad võivad ikkagi otsustada Trumpi kui sümboolset hukkamõistu umbusaldada, kui senat ta õigeks mõistab.

Kuidas mõjutaks umbusaldus Trumpi?

Umbusaldus ei too kaasa ametist tagandamist ega presidendi volituste kaotamist. Kuid nagu süüdistamine, võib ka umbusaldus kahjustada Trumpi 2020. aasta tagasivalimisvõimalusi, samuti kahjustada tema mainet ja pärandit.

Trump lükkas Londonis ajakirjanikele rääkides umbusalduse välja. "Demokraadid on hulluks läinud, nad on hullud. Ja see on meie riigile väga halb, ”ütles Trump.

Vasakul: FAILI FOTO: USA president Donald Trump räägib USAs Washingtonis Valge Maja lõunapoolsel muruplatsil meediasse enne New Yorki lahkumist, 2. novembril 2019. REUTERS/Juri Gripas/Failifoto - RC181F48F0F0


Esimene mustanahaline USA senaator elas erakordset elu

Hiram Revels kukutas kodusõjas orjariigid ja värbas sõdureid. Ametisse astumisest möödunud 150 aasta jooksul on ta üks 11 -st senaatorist, kes kunagi valitud või ametisse nimetatud.

Kui Hiram Rhodes Revels 1870. aastal Washingtoni sõitis, tõi ta kaasa ajaloolise paberilehe: käsitsi kirjutatud dokumendi, mis tõendab tema õigust teenida Ameerika Ühendriikide senatis. Revelsist sai esimene mustanahaline, kes teenis Kongressis.

Kuid vaatamata sellele ametikohale valimisele ei olnud tulevane senaator seadusandjas tervitatav. Selle asemel seisis Ameerika Ühendriikides sündinud poliitiku ees tulevaste kolleegide tihe arutelu selle üle, kas ta on kodanik.

Revels sündis Põhja -Carolinas aastal 1827. Vaba mustanahaliste vanemate poeg, ta sai juuksurihariduse, kuid hiljem omandas hariduse ja karjääri jutlustajana. Aafrika Metodisti piiskopikirikus ordineeritud reisis ta palju, jutlustades kogu Kesk -Läänes ja Lõunas.

Revels vaidlustas ühiskondliku korra sellistes osariikides nagu Missouri, mis keelas vabadel mustanahalistel riiki sisserände ning keelas mustanahaliste jutlustamise ja õpetamise. Kuigi Revels üritas seadusest mööda hiilida, vältides mässu õhutavaid jutlusi - väidetavat põhjust, miks keelati vabadel mustadel inimestel Missourisse kolida -, pandi ta 1854. aastal jutlustamise eest vangi ja lahkus varsti pärast seda.

Kodusõja ajal värbas Revels mustanahalisi sõdureid liidu armeesse ja töötas kaplanina. Hiljem asutas ta koole ja isegi protestis segregatsiooni vastu, kui tema perele määrati istekohad rongi suitsetavas vagunis, hoolimata esmaklassilise istekoha maksmisest. (Pärast seda, kui ta protestis, võtsid nad oma koha esimese klassi autos.)

Aastal 1866 kolis Revels Mississippi osariiki Natchezi, kus ta saavutas auväärse kogukonnajuhi maine. Tema mõju, haridus ja arusaam valgete ameeriklaste maailmast tegi temast “väga väärtusliku ressursi”, kirjutab ajaloolane Julius E. Thompson.

See juhtis teda ka rekonstrueerimisvabariiklaste tähelepanu, kes julgustas teda kandideerima poliitilistele kohtadele, mis olid lõpuks avatud mustanahalistele poliitikutele. 1868. aastal valiti ta Natchezi leppameheks. Aasta hiljem kandideeris ta Mississippi senati. Ja aastal 1870, vana süsteemi kohaselt, kus osariikide seadusandjad valisid välja riiklikud senaatorid, nõustus ta ametisse nimetamisega USA senatis.

Kui Revels veebruaris 1870 Washingtoni läks, kohtas ta aga takistust: demokraatlikud senaatorid otsustasid ta riigiteenistusest blokeerida. Nad väitsid, et ta oli Ameerika kodanik alles pärast 1866. aastat, mil ülemkohus selle tühistas Dred Scott otsus, mis väitis, et afroameeriklased ei ole USA kodanikud.

Revels lubati senati alles pärast pikka ja kirglikku arutelu. "Härra. Revels ei näidanud mingit piinlikkust, "teatas The New York Times, "Ja tema käitumine oli nii väärikas, nagu oludes võis oodata."

Senatis olles võitles Revels Gruusias ametist tagandatud mustanahaliste seadusandjate ennistamise eest ning astus vastu Columbia ringkonna eraldatud koolidele. Kuid vaatamata oma ajaloolisele rollile on Revelsi kritiseeritud selle eest, et ta tegi liiga vähe, et aidata mustanahalisi ameeriklasi, ning selle eest, et ta toetas senati teenistuse ajal amnestiat endistele konföderatsiooni orjapidajatele. Kui tema lühike senati ametiaeg lõppes, naasis ta märtsis 1871. Mississippisse. Nagu ajaloolane Eric Foner ütles Washington PostSteve Hendrix: "See oli Ameerika ajaloos pöördeline hetk, kuigi see peatselt kukutati."

Seal oli veel üks rekonstrueerimise ajastu must senaator Mississippist, Blanche Bruce. Pärast seda, kui ta 1881. aastal senatist lahkus, võttis Mississippi vastu seadused - osa uutest Jim Crow seadustest -, mis takistavad mustanahalistel poliitilisel osalusel.


Senaator Mitt Romney vastu esitatud umbusalduse resolutsioon

Arvestades, et esimesel süüdistamisprotsessil, 5. veebruaril 2020, ilma tõenditeta föderaalse kuriteo või väärteo kohta ja ignoreerides House'i põhiseadusega vastuolus olevat süüdistamisprotsessi, oli Utahi noorem üksik vabariiklane koos senati demokraatidega Presi süüdi mõistmiseks. Trumpist sai esimene senaator USA presidendiajaloo 231 aasta jooksul, kes hääletas tagandamisprotsessis oma erakonna presidendi vastu ja

Arvestades, et 13. jaanuaril 2021 võttis USA Esindajatekoda vastu süüdistuse artikli, milles väideti, et president Trump õhutas USA valitsuse vastu mässu, ilma igasuguste tõenditeta, mis tõestaks tema vägivallale õhutamist, arvestades, et president Trump oli 6. jaanuaril oma toetajad „rahumeelselt ja patriootlikult teie häält kuuldavaks tegema” ning et FBI oli jõudnud järeldusele, et mässuliste poolt Kapitooliumi hoone hõivamine oli enne presidendi kõnet ette planeeritud ja

Arvestades, et 26. jaanuaril 2021, pärast seda, kui president Trump oli oma ametiaja lõpetanud ja ametist lahkunud, hääletas senaator Romney koos kõigi senati demokraatidega põhiseadusevastase näituseprotsessi jätkamiseks (mille ülemkohtu esimees keeldus juhatamast) House'i#süüdistamisartikli kohta ja

Arvestades, et 13. veebruaril 2021 hääletas senaator Romney koos kõigi senati demokraatidega Donald Trumpi süüdimõistmiseks parlamendi tagandamissüüdistuses ja

Arvestades, et Ülejäänud kuue osariigi vabariiklased, kust vabariiklaste senaatorid hääletasid president Trumpi süüdimõistmise üle, on oma senaatorid oma valede häälte eest vastutusele võtnud ja

Arvestades, et Utah vabariiklaste parteiplatvorm nõuab, et me võtaksime valitud juhid vastutusele eetiliste standardite eest ja hääletaksime endise presidendi süüditunnistamiseks ilma piisavate tõenditeta, mis tõestaksid mässu õhutamise süüdistuse mis tahes elementi, nii ebaõiglane kui ka ebaeetiline

Seetõttu lahendage see järgmiselt: Meie, vabariikliku platvormi platvormi direktorite nõukogu, kuulutame käesolevaga oma ühist umbusaldust.

Layne Beck, Cache maakond
Matt Bell, Utah maakond
Aaron Bullen, Utah maakond
Mary Burkett, Washingtoni maakond
Dalane Inglismaa, Davise maakond
Brad Green, Raudmaa
Teena Horlacher, Davise maakond
Bob McEntee, Weberi maakond
Larry Meyers, Washingtoni maakond
Lowell Nelson, Utah maakond
David Pyne, Salt Lake'i maakond
Helen Redd, Salt Lake'i maakond
Lisa Shepherd, Utah County
Ed Wallace, Washingtoni maakond


USA senaatori esimene tsenseerimine - AJALUGU

Viimasel ajal on ette tulnud kohutavaid juhtumeid, mis rõhutavad, kui kaugele on Ameerika Kongress eraldanud end käegakatsutavatest riiklikest huvidest.

Mark Twain kirjutas kunagi, et "seda võiks ilmselt faktide ja arvudega näidata, et peale Kongressi pole selgelt põliselanike Ameerika kuritegelikku klassi." Mõned viimase paari nädala arengud toetaksid seda otsust kindlasti, kui riigi seadusandlikku organit peetakse mehhanismiks, mille eesmärk on avalikkusele kasu saada, kui ta on valitud teenima. Ameerika kahe suure erakonna silmakirjalikkus on vaatamisväärsus, korruptsioon on tasemel, mida enamikus kolmanda maailma riikides harva saavutatakse.

Viimasel ajal on esinenud kohutavaid juhtumeid, mis rõhutavad, kui kaugele on Ameerika Kongress eraldunud igasugustest käegakatsutavatest riiklikest huvidest, kui välistada rikkaks saamine ja uuesti valimine, olenemata sellest, millises järjekorras seda teha soovitakse. Üks parimaid rikkaks saamise ja uuesti valimisele vaatamata sellele, et tal pole kahte ajurakku kokku hõõruda, on lugupeetud Maxine Waters Californiast, kes on mänginud oma hiljutises katses inspireerida vihast rahvamassi mõrvaprotsessi korral rohkem vastasseisu tekitama. Minneapolise politseinik Derek Chauvin pidi süüdimõistmise ebaõnnestumise tõttu valesti minema.

Pidage nüüd meeles, et meie, ameeriklased, elame ühiskonnas, kus pole süüd ja vastutust. Kuna Maxine'il on palju kaitsjaid, sest ta on mustanahaline, naine ja ennekõike demokraat, oleks võinud eeldada, et tema puhul käsitletakse kongressi liikme üleskutset mässata kui sündmust ja nii tõestas, kui GOP tegi nõrga katse teda tema käitumise eest halvustada.

Kuna Maxine esindab osa Californiast, ei olnud tema esinemine Minnesotas midagi enamat kui rassisöötmine vägivallaähvardusega. Püüded seda iseloomustada sõnavabadusena ignoreerivad asjaolu, et ta on valitsusametnik, kelle eest makstakse heldelt maksumaksja, ja kodanike ühe osa üleskutset vägivallale, mis on suunatud nii õigussüsteemi kui ka teise valimisringkonna vastu, ei saa pidada vastuvõetavaks. See on tõepoolest süüdistamatu.

Tuleb imestada, kes maksis Watersi Minnesota reisi eest, ja imestada tema jultumuse üle, kui ta palus ja sai relvastatud politseisaatjat enda turvalisuse huvides lennujaama ja tagasi sõites. Võib-olla jäid tema kõned politsei rahastamisest tühjaks kuni tema reiside lõpetamiseni. Samuti on oluline mõista, et 29 -aastase ametisoleku staaži tõttu on ta hoolimata sellest, et tal puudus midagi, mida võiks nimetada isegi aususe patriotismiks, osa parlamendi demokraatide juhtkonnast. Ta on peamine enamuse piits, on olnud parlamendi Musta Kaukause esimees ja on parlamendi finantsteenuste komitee edetabeli liige. Kunagi varem pole keegi nii palju saavutanud, kui tal on nii vähe pakkuda.

Kuid lugu ei lõpe sellega, kus tuleb esile USA kongressi tõeline vääratus. Kui vabariiklased püüdsid Watersit õigesti mõista, oli vältimatu, et president Donald Trumpi hiljutine süüdistamine süüdistava keele kasutamise pärast 6. jaanuaril Kapitooliumi rahvahulga ees kõnelemisel tuli päevakorda, kuid Demokraatliku Partei juhtkonnal ei olnud sellest midagi. . Mägi teatab, et vahetult enne Watersi umbusaldushääletust, selle asemel, et aktsepteerida, et need kaks rikkumist olid omamoodi, esitas koja enamuse juht Steny Hoyer hoopis ähvarduse, hoiatades vabariiklaste juhtkonda, et Watersi tsenseerimisel nimekirja sundimine raskendaks õigustamist ei võta sarnaseid meetmeid, mis on suunatud vabariiklastest kongressi liikmetele. "See teeb aga raskemaks mitte jätkata arvukaid [sarnaseid] resolutsioone minu pool vahekäiku," ütles ta.

Nii et mäng käib uute reeglite järgi. 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

Meie toimetajad vaatavad teie esitatud teabe üle ja otsustavad, kas artiklit muuta.

Kamala Harris, täielikult 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.