Don’t Seat Them!

The election of two avowedly radical candidates to the U.S. House of Representatives raises a question that is both constitutional and moral: should Congress seat members who have openly expressed contempt for the country they are sworn to serve?

The Oath of Office

Every member of Congress must take the following oath before assuming office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The question is whether newly elected representatives Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez can take that oath in good faith. Chevalier has described the United States as the “ultimate embodiment” of Western imperialism and colonialism and was a founding member of a college organization that called for the “total eradication of Western civilization.” Valdez has called for abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, granting citizenship and voting rights to all undocumented immigrants, and has argued that the United States has “no right to enforce its borders” because it is a nation “founded on genocide and mass displacement.”

If either takes the oath, they would be making a promise their own public statements suggest they do not intend to keep. If they refuse, a different set of questions is raised entirely. In either case, should Congress refuse to seat them?

Carville’s Warning

Democratic strategist James Carville thinks that they should not be allowed in the democrat caucus. He said “Two of ‘em I don’t think are even Democrats. This Chevalier lady, I don’t – they should not seat her in the caucus. Her views are totally against anything that any Democrats have. We believe in pluralism, she doesn’t believe in interracial dating. I don’t think there’s a place in the party. I’m not, by the way, I’m not sure she wants to be a Democrat. Go do something else! Form your own party!” 

“She is not a Democrat, okay?” Carville said. “That is pretty clear, and frankly, I think a lot of Democrats feel like I do. I don’t have any power, just an old washed-up consultant, but I wouldn’t seat her! This is not who we are! And we should just say, look, you’re duly elected, have your seat in Congress, but you would not be getting any committee assignments when the Democrats got the majority.”

That is a reasonable starting point. But does it go far enough? Not only would I deny them a seat in the democrat caucus, I would deny them a seat in the Congress.

A Constitutional Remedy

Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants each chamber of Congress the authority to judge the qualifications of its own members:

“Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.”

This provision has been used before. The House famously refused to seat Adam Clayton Powell Jr. following an ethics investigation. After the Civil War, members who had supported the Confederacy were denied their seats on grounds of disloyalty. The precedent exists. The question is whether the Congress has the political will to do the right thing.

Representatives who have called for the destruction of Western civilization and argue that the United States has no legitimate right to its own borders cannot in good conscience swear to defend the Constitution of the nation they openly despise.

The Working-Class Myth

Good old Bernie Sanders, our resident senior socialists is still clueless. He hailed the elections as a triumph of working people over establishment politics. He said “working people” across New York delivered a powerful message: the era of status quo politics is over.” Sanders said in a post about “lessons” from Tuesday’s election that “when working people stand together, organize, and fight back, they can defeat establishment politicians and enormous amounts of money and political influence.” 

Garbage. The actual results tell a different story. Both Chevalier and Valdez won by significant margins in higher-income, college-educated districts and in heavily Muslim precincts—but lost by roughly ten points in working-class and minority neighborhoods. Hispanic voters in particular rejected both candidates.

This is not the uprising of the proletariat that Marx envisioned and Sanders celebrates. It is, as New York Attorney General Letitia James observed, a reflection of the political preferences of gentrified, spoiled college educated newcomers who have displaced the very working-class residents the socialists claim to champion.