Skip to comments.Charles Rangel sues to overturn censure
Posted on 04/23/2013 11:01:13 AM PDT by South40
Rep. Charles Rangel filed suit in federal court Monday against seven fellow lawmakers to demand that his 2010 censure by the House of Representatives be stricken from its records.
The maneuver is the 82-year-old Harlem Democrats latest bid to clear his name and legacy after his colleagues voted 333-79 to censure him for a series of ethical lapses, including failure to pay taxes on rental income from a villa in the Dominican Republic.
Legal experts called the 34-page complaint almost unprecedented.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Just maybe the idiots will now see they should have thrown Rangel out on his ass instead.
“Legal experts called the 34-page complaint almost unprecedented.”
almost........that means some other POS has tried it before.
I think constitutionally the House is the sole judge of its
If so, then the courts have no jurisdiction to tell the House that
it can’t censor one of its own.
you’re a real class act, there chucky-poo!
He was on Cavuto last week. He looked emaciated. His cheeks were sunken, He looked bad.
Were he white, I’d say he was pale too.
But Scotus did not when it came to Rangel's predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell, another Harlem scumbag.
Adam Clayton Powell pecked at his fellow representatives from his unassailable perch in New York's Harlem. Powell had been embroiled in controversy inside and outside Washington. When Powell failed to heed civil proceedings against him in New York, a judge held him in criminal contempt. His problems were only beginning. He won reelection in 1966 but the House of Representatives voted to exclude him.
Powell v. McCormack/Opinion of the Court.
To summarize, we have determined the following: (1) This case has not been mooted by Powell's seating in the 91st Congress. (2) Although this action should be dismissed against respondent Congressmen, it mayb e sustained against their agents. (3) The 90th Congress' denial of membership to Powell cannot be treated as an expulsion. (4) We have jurisdiction over the subject matter of this controversy. (5) The case is justiciable.
Further, analysis of the 'textual commitment' under Art. I, § 5 (see Part VI, B (1)), has demonstrated that in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution. Respondents concede that Powell met these. Thus, there is no need to remand this case to determine whether he was entitled to be seated in the 90th Congress. Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership.
Now, Rangel was censured and not booted from Congress like Powell, but Scotus got away with overturning a decision by three fourths of the House of Reps.
He has nothing to worry about. He will rise through the ranks of the democrat party.
Jus bidness. Crooks be crooks.
Rangel left with too much money in his pocket.
Take his $$$ away and the suits will disappear.
You are exactly right. This is an internal act by a separate branch or government and I don’t think the courts have a say in it. But what the heck, this black ass and the rest of the democrats haven’t a clue what the Constitution says
Charles gives blacks a bad name.
We are watching the actions of a disgraced long-time corrupt black race hustling democrat being cast aside by the new generation of up-and-coming black race-hustling democrats. Charlie just got sloppy and was expendable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.