E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
The AP reports that Rep. Charlie Rangel is attempting to hammer out a settlement in the ethics case against him, an agreement that would spare him a lengthy trial this fall. According to the AP's report, the settlement would require Rangel to admit that he committed some ethical misconduct.
It's not clear what the terms of the settlement might be or what exactly the ethics panel's charges entail.
But Congress does have a series of protocols that it has historically used to discipline members found to have seriously violated House rules. Republicans attempted to use one of these methods early in the Rangel inquiry, offering a rare motion to "censure" the House Ways and Means Chairman shortly after Rangel called for an ethics probe of himself in July 2008. That motion was shelved by a vote of 254-138.
Here’s a look at the kinds of disciplinary measures that the House has used over the past 200 years:
In addition to punishing its own members for any criminal or civil charges against them, the House is authorized to discipline members for “disorderly Behavior” under Section 5 of the First Article of the Constitution, according to the Congressional Research Service.
While it is possible for the House to vote to expel one of their own, it’s very rare. Expulsion requires a two-thirds vote of the body’s 435 members. Only five congressmen have ever been expelled from the House; the most recent ousting, in 2002, was that of the outlandish Ohio Rep. Jim Trafficant, who went on to serve seven years in prison for corruption and racketeering. In 1980, Rep. Michael Myers of Pennsylvania was ousted after a bribery charge related to the ABSCAM scandal. Three Southern congressmen were ejected for “taking up arms against the United States” in 1861.
More common than expulsion votes are “censures” and “reprimands,” which only require a majority vote.
A total of 22 members of Congress have been subject to a “censure” since the 1830s. A perusal of the list shows that most of those took place during the Civil War and subsequent Reconstruction era, with several members punished for “unparliamentary language.” (For example: Rep. Fernando Wood – who, like Rangel, was a New York Democrat who served as Chairman of the Ways and Means committee – was censured in 1868 for calling a piece of legislation “a bill without a name, a child without a name and probably without a father, a monstrosity, a measure the most infamous of the many infamous acts of this infamous Congress.”)
In 1983, Reps. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts and Daniel Crane of Illinois were censured after admitting to having sexual relationships with teenage pages.
The formal vote of censure usually includes the requirement that the accused member must stand at the “well” of the House chamber to be verbally chastised by the Speaker of the House. After the vote itself, however, there are no specifically mandated consequences for those who have been censured.
Less severe than a “censure” is a “reprimand,” a disciplinary action that has been used since the 1970s, generally to register disapproval related to charges related to abuse of political influence or failure to accurately report campaign contributions. The major difference between a “censure” and a “reprimand” – terms that were often used interchangeably before the 1970s – is that a reprimand usually does not involve a verbal admonishment by the Speaker.
Eight members of Congress have been reprimanded. Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich was reprimanded in 1997 after the Ethics Committee determined that he improperly used tax-exempt money for political purposes and supplied inaccurate information to the panel investigating the matter. Democratic Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts also received a reprimand in 1990 for fixing over 30 parking tickets and trying to influence probation officers on behalf of a male prostitute.
Leave a Comment:
Halperin finally states the obvious. Will MSNBC finally realize this. Charlie the rangler needs to quit..now!
Halperin: "stories emanating from the right are given more weight" by media
July 27, 2010 12:00 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Time’s Mark Halperin, explaining an obvious truth:
There’s nothing about that statement that should be even remotely controversial. Yet many people -- like, say, the Washington Post’s ombudsman -- don’t understand it. Conclusion: Those who do understand it need to say it more frequently and more forcefully.
Good information. I had not heard this yet.
It's about time the media started examining itself. There are too many lies to count that were pushed by FOX and became topics on the MSM.
Anything short of resignation by Charlie is unacceptable.
And no Charlie, paying your taxes is not optional.
True, that. But let's hold everyone to the same standard, and corporations, too.
Absolutely.
Can't help but wonder why it is necessary to repeat everything when replying to a post directly above--habit, or cut and paste syndrome.
Anna Molly - that's what happens when you're paid by the word! lol
Make every keystroke count!
Cha Ching!
What does Fox have to do with this story? I've seen Rangel saga - failing to pay taxes reported on all the news shows.
The best part is he was the guy responsible for the tax code. Yet he apparently did not feel obligated to pay his taxes. That's great, just treat us all the same.
Charlie mistook NBCs Luke Russert for a Fox reporter because Luke actually asked Charlie a hard question. To the liberals, that means Fox is to blame.
Oh, and great post!
jomama, Mark Halperin is one of the guilty ones here. He lost credibility a long long time ago in my eyes. When you're a journalist, you don't let ANYONE - left or right - turn you into a sell out. You shoot for the truth. At all times.
Halperin sold out to the right. And it was obvious from the get-go. No turning back for jounalists. They either have integrity or they don't. He didn't. And that's why we can't stand most of them. They're full of it and they're too arrogant to believe we the viewers know better.
Well we do.
Hmmm...
I guess that's why MSNBC named Halperin senior political analyst at the end of last month, Pat...because he "sold out to the right".
I doubt that there are too many serious observers of the political scene who consider Mark Halperin to be a shill for the right.
Certainly not the management at MSNBC responsible for his hiring.
MB: Mark Halperin was almost in tears last year because there weren't headlines screaming all over the country that had something to do with Nancy Pelosi accusing the CIA of lying. Halperin wanted to know - where were the headlines that should have been accusing Nancy of lying????? Turns out Nancy Pelosi was correct.
But Halperin of course assumed it was Nancy who was lying, before the facts were in. Note here - he just assumed she was lying. Without all the facts. When the right wing goes after her or any other Democrat, so does Halperin.
That ain't journalism.
I agree, Pat. I am glad to see Halperin finally take a look and acknowledge what's been going on. He lost credibility for me sometime ago on Morning Joe and some of the nightime lineups.
His punishment should be an old fashion pistol duel. He should walk ten paces, turn around, aim, and shoot himself in the foot.
Oh wait....he already did that.
Socialism in action. DINO style.
agreed Pat, has anyone been watching Sponge Joe, what makes the guest bigot Buchannon relevant?
Wasn't Joe "You Lie" Wilson censured? Why, yes he was, the vote was 240-179 in favor. Let's see, you say two words at an untimely moment, and you are censured. You're a tax cheat, like Rangel, and the Democrats are thinking of censuring Rangel? If that is what happens, then this deal is a complete whitewash by the Democrats.
Rangel deserves expulsion from the House. Especially from the most ethical, honest, and transparent House ever (Thanks for that quote Nancy P!)
Like Joe Biden says: "This is a big f------ deal!"
This is the first and only time I can agree with JoAnna. Rangel should step down, if not , he should be expelled.
There seems to be several in Congress, now and throughout history, that have questionable morals. If Mr. Rangel is guilty of wrongdoing he should be punished in the manner traditional for a person in Congress. I know that there are people out for a pound of flesh from Rangel but I doubt they will get it. His party affiliation has nothing to do with it either. Unfortunately I think Blago will also go free but not being in Congress he should get more than he likely will.
I would like to be the first to nominate JoannaSmith the High Priestess of the GOBP dopes of nope and future queen of Beckistan and grounds keeper in chief at the bogus 8/28 Nostradumbass rally. You go girl, all aboard..lol. When are we going to put the heartless Darth vader and his stooge Bushed on trial for war crimes?
Ahh, jomama, you were doing so well, had a nice flow going, then you got into the standard leftie-idiot Bush/Cheney rant, proving to the world that you're nothing but just another brain-dead lib that watches just a little too much MSNBC at night. That stuff will rot your brain, and so goes the proof.
Also, great post, and I voted!
JoAnna, lets jump a shark together..lol..your highness