The American Rep. Mo Brooks of Huntsville, Alabama confronts rare political waters: he could become the first Alabama member of Congress to be convicted.
The rarities also put Brooks in a disturbing company: If his censorship was approved in the House of Representatives, the Republican of Huntsville would become the first congressman to take disciplinary action for inciting an uprising more than 160 years ago since the Civil War .
“In the modern era, for the past 100 years, the only censorship in the House has been for scandals, whether financial or sexual scandals,” said Allan Lichtman, a professor of history at the American University in Washington, DC. “If Brooks were censored for inciting rebellion, it would be unprecedented in the modern era for the United States.”
He added: ‘You have to go back to the civil war when some were condemned for supporting the Confederacy. It would be a profound reprimand against the representative to be convicted of such an unpatriotic act. ‘
Brooks issued a lengthy news release Tuesday to defend himself against the motion of no confidence tabled by Democratic representatives Tom Malinowski of New Jersey and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida. In the statement, Brooks denied prior knowledge of the January 6 uprising in the Capitol building following a fiery speech in which he begged American “patriots” to “start taking pictures and kicking a hole”.
Brooks, defending himself as a ‘square’ who had never smoked tobacco and had never been in trouble with the law, said he was unrelated to and also did not communicate with the anti-government groups that the Capitol trespassed and did not loot the historic building The Congress was in session. Brooks said he was in the building when it was flooded by violent Trump supporters, and that his remarks during the protest were ripped out by Democrats and the media.
But Malinowski said during an appearance on CNN Monday that he was confident he had enough votes to despise Brooks. He said he expects Republicans to support his resolution. It is unclear when the resolution for voting may come and whether it will be voted on before the inauguration next week, or that it will be postponed later.
A shame
A disapproval vote also requires only a simple majority vote of the House of Representatives.
Thomas Shaw, an associate professor of political science at the University of Southern Alabama, said this is likely to happen in light of the Republican Rep.’S statement. Liz Cheney of Wyoming that accountability is needed to address the violence in the Capitol that results in five deaths, including the Capitol police officer. Brian Sicknick who was allegedly hit in the head by rioters.
“It will not be extensive, but there will be dual support for it,” Shaw said. “It simply came to our notice then. It was a watershed moment in American history that the Capitol was attacked in what is being described as an act of terrorism. ”
Shaw said censorship against Brooks would be a ‘stain on his record’, but that he would not be ‘awful’ because it did not mean the congressman would be scrapped from his usual congressional duties.
The resolution requires Brooks to ‘present himself in the pit of the House of Representatives’ for the verdict of abuse.
“Throughout his career, he has not had any ethical violations,” Shaw said. ‘But Republicans, since he is the minority in the House, would not have had a presidency that could be stripped of him. Otherwise, he retains his powers, voting ability and his office. ”
Shaw added: ‘This is a kind of public shame. The question is ‘how bad is it?’ Apart from the shame aspects, it does not mean much. ”
Constitutional applications
If the House votes to condemn Brooks, it will be the first time the same disciplinary procedure allowed in the U.S. Constitution has been used since 2010, when Democratic U.S. Representative Charles Rangel of New York was convicted of his role in financial wandade.
Lichtman said Brooks has no other way to fight censorship than in the Democratic House. The Constitution prescribes that resolutions of no confidence must be focused on members of their homes.
There were only eight instances of distrust in the Senate, with the most notable in 1954 against Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, which made unfounded allegations that numerous Soviet spies and sympathizers had infiltrated the federal government, universities, and elsewhere.
Members of Congress can also be reprimanded, which is considered a severe punishment but has been used more frequently since the 1970s. Dozens of lawmakers were reprimanded in the House, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997 for providing false information to the House Oversight Committee. A reprimand does not require the legislature to stand before the House and read the resolution to them.
Eviction is the most severe punishment against a member of Congress and requires a two-thirds vote of the majority of the members of the legislature. Only five members of the House were expelled, and three of them were related to supporting the Confederate rebellion in 1861.
Four elected representatives were suspended before taking office, but the most recent case has been disputed in federal courts. In 1967, longtime New York representative Adam Clayton Powell – at the time embroiled in a financial scandal – was denied the oath of office of the then speaker, William William McCormick. Powell, who won re-election to his seat from Congress in 1966, sued McCormick and a number of others, arguing that his inability to take the oath of office amounted to an exclusion required by two-thirds of the House. The Supreme Court has ruled that Powell was wrongfully expelled from his seat.
Allen Linken, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, said Powell’s case illustrates the ‘finite’ considerations for sitting as a member of the House of Representatives – according to the Constitution, members must be at least 25 years old be an American citizen for seven years and live in the same state they represent.
“It does not matter what the ethical considerations are or the issues you face outside the (legislative) body,” Linken said. “You sat down.”
He said one constitutional issue that could be of interest in the Brooks case is whether Article 1, Article 6 of the Constitution could apply if the congressman is criminally facing charges of inciting a riot. The District of Columbia’s attorney general is considering suing Brooks and others for inciting violence at the Capitol.
The Constitution provides that a member of Congress in all cases, except treason, crimes and breach of the peace, is ‘privileged to be arrested during their attendance’ during a congressional meeting on the Capitol floor. But the Constitution also stipulates that members of Congress exercise a “privilege” to go to the same and return. “
“What a member generally says on the floor of the house is privileged,” Linken said. “If I leave the scene, I think there’s a decent discussion going on as to whether or not Representative Brooks should go to a joint congressional session (when he spoke during the Trump rally).”
But Linken notes that the constitutional clause does not apply to the resolution of abuse.
An act of the house is not an arrest, ‘he said. “This is a consequence of your employer as opposed to a criminal complaint.”
Historical comparisons
Brooks’ censorship, if it occurs, is something Alabama has never experienced with any of its members of Congress.
Steve Flowers, a political commentator in Alabama who served with Brooks in the Alabama legislature in the early 1980s, said the state has had “many erudite senators and congressmen” since the civil rights era of the 1960s. highlighted by Senators John Sparkman and Lister Hill. which are both ‘respected’. He said in recent history there have been no actions in the past that would lead to disciplinary action against a member of Congress from Alabama.
“Other southern states like South Carolina and Mississippi, their senators are considered more racist who would demagogue the racial problem (during the civil rights era), and our senators would never do that,” Flowers said. “They would vote for segregation because they had to. But no one was as controversial as Brooks. It is only in the last decade or more when the Mo Brooks of this world, the reactionary bomber who is truly ideologues, were elected. ”
Brooks’ censorship is also striking because other controversial moments involving Alabama congressmen have not resulted in a similar reprimand from colleagues.
Former Alabama Congressman Tom “Cotton” Heflin. ((The Birmingham News / Alabama Media Group / AL.com)
The most frightening moment in which a member of the Alabama Congress delegation was involved took place nearly 113 years ago and involved Democratic Rep. Thomas “Cotton” Heflin, who served in the U.S. House from 1904 to 1920. During that time, Heflin – a ban and a racist. – according to a historical report, saw a black man sitting on a tram in Washington, DC, sipping whiskey with a white woman. Heflin threw the man off the tram during the confrontation and shot him in the leg. The bullet also hit a white bystander. Heflin was arrested, but the Blackman did not show up for the trial and the charges were dismissed. Heflin pays for a portion of the bystander’s medical bills and then brags about the incident while campaigning for the U.S. Senate. Heflin served in the Senate from 1920-1931.
Other members of Congress had dubious backgrounds before being elected. Democratic Senator Hugo Black, before being elected to the Senate in 1927, resigned in 1925 as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
“The Tom Heflin incident was the worst event,” said Wayne Flynt, a political historian and emeritus professor in Alabama. ‘The only other that has led to censorship is one of the retrospective ways in which some judge history and apply the standards of one generation to a previous one. By that standard, Alabama’s senators had previously owned slaves, and the state’s most liberal senator, Hugo Black, was briefly a member of the KKK during the 1920s, as were all of Alabama’s ambitious politicians. ‘
Related content: The mayor of Huntsville offers no support to Mo Brooks: ‘Words have meaning’