Ayanna Pressley and 54 Fellow “Freshmen” To Ascend Capitol Steps with a Smile

[Editor’s note: This article was published at RumormillNews.com with the title “Shocker: Rep Pressley of Boston Could Oust Pelosi”]

by Mary  Maxwell, LLB

In November, 2018, Ayanna Pressley of Boston won the seat for Massachusetts 7th Congressional district. Now, in January, 2019 she joins 54 other newcomers to the House of Representatives. She also joins the 380 “returned incumbents” to the House.

In my 2011 book Prosecution for Treason, I tried to how easy it can be to change what goes on in Congress.  I pretended that no incumbent would be re-elected, thus all 435 new arrivals would see that there was no need for them to kowtow to any pre-existing power, as none would exist!

I shall now quote that section from my book. Actually, it’s just as relevant to any group of 435 members of the House as they assemble for a “new” Congress in January of every odd-numbered year. There is no such thing in the US Constitution as a carry-over of any special position from the previous Congress, such as the position of Speaker of the House.  All is up for grabs (though most don’t know that).

Here is my little fantasy; I will explain it below:

YOUR FIRST WEEK IN CONGRESS

Finally, the American public woke up to the fact that since no member of Congress, except Cynthia McKinney, had ever taken up the astounding case of 9/11, it was necessary to replace the entire House. You are one of the replacements, elected by the people of your district on the first Tuesday of November.

You found an apartment in Washington, DC, in December and today, the first Monday in January, you walk up the steps of the

Capitol. A great serenity comes over you, “the Honorable Member.”  You know that the 434 others are really going to be your teammates. None of them has a need to ridicule you. Everyone is smiling knowingly at each other.

As you enter the chamber, you see that the seats do not have name-tags, so you sit where you please. In a few minutes your colleagues are starting to chuckle over the fact that there is no one to greet the members or to start the formalities. Someone gets to her feet and starts a pledge of allegiance to the flag. Everyone joins in.

Then a young person approaches the pit (Is that what it is called?) and says “May I have the floor long enough to propose that the Member from Nevada’s second district, James Eagle, preside over us, only for today, in order to handle housekeeping?”  “I’ll second that,” says a lady with a Southern drawl. “Any objections?” None are heard. “All in favor?” A mixture of Aye, Aye’s and Hear, Hear’s, and James Eagle walks to the lectern. He says:

“We will need to compose a whole set of House rules in the coming weeks, but I suggest for the moment we follow the rules of the last Congress for a few days so there won’t be chaos.” “Aye, aye” shout the members. “And I propose that the Member from the 5th district of Michigan – Ruth – would she stand up, please – be the person to whom you give nominations, including self-nominations, for the position of Speaker. She should give us a synopsis a week from today, and again after two weeks on what she has received.”

Objection from the floor “Why did you pick Ruth?” James: “She is the only person I know so far.” (Laughter)  “Well, I‘d prefer you draw the name from a hat instead, so we can be sure it isn‘t a fix”

“Good idea. Anyone who wants to collect nominations for Speaker just put your name in this hat, please. And how shall we pick my replacement for tomorrow?” “Just go alphabetically by surname.” “Hmm. I like that. Any objections?” None. “Those in favor?” Enthusiastic ripple of Aye, Aye’s.

Radical Changes Are Possible

Now we return to reality, where most of the oldies think the current rules for representatives are set in concrete, and the newbies either don’t realize that there isn’t any concrete stuff, or are too shy to demand change.

Here are three startling facts straight out of the Constitution.

Numero Uno:

If there is a baddy in the House, he or she can be kicked out with nothing more complicated that a vote.  Here it is in plain English in Article I, section 5:

“Each House may punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”

They tried to do it to Rep Adam Clayton Powell in 1966 but did not succeed. They did succeed with James Trafficant of Ohio in 2002. Out he went. The definition of “disorderly behavior” is not justiciable. The Congress owns the right. See?

Numero Dos:

Congress can, at any time, repeal or amend its previous legislation.

You want to see the section of the Constitution that allows that? Seek and ye shall not find it.  That’s how you know Congress can do what it pleases in regard to repealing or amending its own work! The Framers were careful to put into Article I, the article dedicated to the Legislature, all the restrictions on what Congress can do.

So right now the reps can indeed roll back the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the despised Homeland Security Act of 2002, and anything else. (Don’t get me started on war powers, OK?)

Numero Tres:

Committee memberships, “seniority,” and any such thing. Article I, section 5 says:

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

Every two years there is a new Congress.  The first one sat in 1791 (for two years, as always).  The one that begins this week is the 116^th Congress. (I tried to get elected to the 110^th, but failed). In 2007 the House, before passing its rules, offered this to its members:

“Resolved by this House: That the following shall be the rules to regulate the proceedings of the House of Representatives for the 2007 and 2008 sessions: …

SEATS

32. Immediately after the adoption of these rules the speaker shall appoint a committee of four, who shall assign seats to all members of the House. 33. The seats assigned to members shall be their seats for their term of office.”

Would I have jumped up on January 4, 2007 and said “Hey wait a minute – I want the window seat”? Probably not, but I might well have passed around a “mimeographed note” to everyone warning them not to be too tied to tradition.

Party, Party, Don’t Party

In the Westminster system (as far as I understand it and please don’t rely on me), the party that wins the most seats in the UK House of Commons or the Commonwealth Parliament in Australia gets to pick the leader.  Just count the seats. If the Libs have it, they get Malcolm Turnbull, or whatever. (And he is spillable by Party caucus.)

The US does not have the Westminster system and should not imitate it. Why not? Because the Deep State wants them to and we ought to want what the Deep State does not want!

John C Coleman wrote his important book Conspirator’s Hierarchy in 1992. He claimed that Lloyd Cutler had been secretly assigned to try to Westminster-ize the American system. On page 170, Coleman said that Cutler has been “working to change the US Congress into a non-representative parliamentary system…. Members will not be responsible to their constituents but to party whips and will be told the way they are to vote.”

I think Cutler deserves a medal (how about the Non-Freedom Medal?), insofar as Congresspersons then began to obey their party religiously.  This is an unbelievable betrayal of the people, and may account for much bad legislation. Note: It happens in the Senate as well as the House but I am only thinking of the House in this article.

Perhaps you want to find something in the Constitution that rails against parties? Don’t bother. The Constitution never mentions parties.  When a district (having in the old days 30,000 citizens, now having 770,000) elects its representative, the person – say,  Ayanna Pressley from Boston – should do the Boston thing, not the Democrat thing.

I’m not saying the Democrat thing is wrong.  I don’t care if it right or wrong – but she has to represent her constituents.

Here is an example of how “awesome” the Speaker’s power has become.  Speaker Nancy Pelosi herded her Democrats to support the Repubs when she proclaimed that any Bush/Cheney impeachment was “off the table,” meaning she would not allow a vote to come to the floor.

Note: It goes against nature that she did this! Bush/Cheney had only a year left in office; she would have become US president of they got impeached. (The Speaker of the House is 2nd after the VP if both president and vice president leave office.)

Any 18-Year-Olds Out There?

If you don‘t think Congress is too impressive, how about taking over? It’s easy. You need only be age 25.

Constitution Article I, Sec 2:

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

Many state positions are open to 18-year-olds.

In 2018, Cassie Levesque was elected to the New Hampshire state legislature form her district in Barrington, NH. She was 18. But at 17 she already got a start while in high school by pushing for the age of marriage to be raised. It had been 13 for girls, 14 for boys.

This year she succeeded, in the legislature. Governor Chris Sununu signed the new law and it comes into effect tomorrow, January 1, 2019. Ms Levesque says she will, in due course, try to push it up to age 18.

Isn’t that nice?

A Word about the “Treason” of McCain

When thumbing through my Prosecution book for the Coleman quote, I found that I had put forth Senator John McCain as a traitor, and this was without reference to his prisoner-of-war episode. I said:

“In March 2010, Senators McCain and Leiberman proposed a bill, S.3081, that essentially denounces habeas corpus. In my opinion, both men are indictable for treason. I realize that is a strong statement but haven‘t many people declared the Patriot Act to be treasonous?

It would be helpful for us laypersons to make it a rebuttable presumption that legislation that flies in the face of the Constitution is traitorous. (In law, ‘presumptions’ are handy; they let you start without proof, and the other person has to show that your presumption is wrong. I suggest only that we do it informally.)

I recommend that we waste not another minute watching our birthright, the Constitution, be decimated by Congress. Let‘s indict the sponsors of treasonous bills. But might this get out of hand, with folks applying the word ‘treason’ to any bill they dislike? No. We have brains enough to attack only the bills that deserve it.

Often the White House or an interest group is the originator of a bill. For instance, the Patriot Act was drafted by Michael Chertoff and Viet Dinh, both DoJ employees at the time. But they did not commit the treason of making it into law – only legislators could do that – Rep Jim Sensenbrenner was the proposer of the Patriot Act. Don‘t be concerned that since most representatives voted for Patriot Act, the task of prosecuting would be overwhelming, and would leave us without a parliament. The smallest list (how about ‘McCain and Lieberman’?) would make Congress reform overnight.”