1) The House of Representatives fined multiple Republicans recently for failing to don a mask on the floor. $500 for a first offense. $2,500 for a second offense.
There’s a general premise on Capitol Hill that Members of Congress don’t like to be told what to do.
There’s a general premise on Capitol Hill that Members of Congress don’t like to be told what to do.
2) But, lawmakers agree to a certain set of rules – on which Members themselves vote – for how the House and Senate operate. A lot of those rules deal with how lawmakers comport and conduct themselves and respect the institution. Lawmakers may vote no or disagree with the rules.
3) But…
Them’s the rules.
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants both the House and Senate the authority to establish their own rules. For a short period, or, practically indefinitely.
Them’s the rules.
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants both the House and Senate the authority to establish their own rules. For a short period, or, practically indefinitely.
4) That’s what led to the imposition of recent House rules to permit remote voting, require masks on the floor unless lawmakers are speaking, and, mandate House members pass through metal detectors before entering the House chamber.
5) Some Republicans may not embrace the House mask rule. But the full House voted to require masks on the floor. The same with a rule requiring members pass through metal detectors to enter the House chamber. Members voted on that provision, too.
6) The House now fines members $5,000 if they don’t walk through metal detectors to reach the House floor.
Of course, Democrats abhorred internal rules okayed by Republicans when they ran the show here.
Of course, Democrats abhorred internal rules okayed by Republicans when they ran the show here.
7) Multiple Republicans upbraided then House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving after the late civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and Rep. John Larson (D-CT) led a 2016 sit-in on the floor to protest gun violence.
8) Republicans were beside themselves that Democrats would actually sit on the carpet in the well of the House chamber to make their point. Some GOP members implored Irving and his aides to arrest Lewis and others – precisely the optic Democrats would have loved to have had.
9) Then House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) described the sit-in as “chaos” and worried it set a “very dangerous precedent.”
10) In January, 2017, the House approved a new set of rules for the 115th Congress. Included in the rules package were fines for members who may disrupt the House, such as with a sit-in.
11) Mbrs could also face sanctions if they broke House protocol by telecasting their own video stream from the floor or snapped pictures. Such was the rage during the sit-in. Members would first receive a warning. Then, face a $500 fine.
12) Finally, the House would levy a $2,500 fine for additional infractions.
Democrats cried foul.
Sound familiar?
The difference is that Democrats imposed the mask rule since they are in the majority now and Republicans don’t like it.
Democrats cried foul.
Sound familiar?
The difference is that Democrats imposed the mask rule since they are in the majority now and Republicans don’t like it.
13) And Republicans imposed the sit-in rule when they ran the House and Democrats objected while in the minority.
Welcome to Congress.
Welcome to Congress.
14) But the threatened fines of the 115th Congress and the levied fines of the 117th Congress bring us to an important intersection: the 27th Amendment to the Constitution.
15) It reads: “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.”
16) In other words, if Congress passes a bill to change how much lawmakers make, it doesn’t take effect until after the next election. The argument goes like this: if lawmakers really want to vote themselves a pay raise, they should have to answer to the voters first.
17) Granted, the House approved an internal rule regarding the fines. Both houses of Congress haven’t okayed an actual bill, signed into President, which became a law regarding the “varying of compensation” for Members.
18) The “salary” of lawmakers of $174,000 hasn’t been changed. But, some may argue that fining Members, potentially a lot, runs afoul of the 27th Amendment. Democrats made that argument in 2016 when the GOP proposed their rule.
19) And, top aides then then Speaker Ryan defended the new rule in 2017 as meeting the Constitutional bar.
20) But the mask and metal detector issue isn’t going away any time soon. That means more fines could be on the way. And those who get fined interpret the garnishment of their salaries as “varying” the pay of lawmakers, without an “intervening election.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
