More stories

  • in

    Cori Bush and AOC Are Right About Jan. 6 and 1866

    When, in the early morning hours of Jan. 7, Congress finally certified the 2020 Electoral College count, more than 140 Republican members of Congress had voted, in one way or another, to reject the outcome. They had embraced the spirit of the mob that stormed the Capitol the day before, even if they had not physically joined it.With that said, there was a smaller number of congressional Republicans who may have gone further than simply casting a vote the way President Donald Trump wanted them to, in the days leading up to Jan. 6. According to a new report by Hunter Walker in Rolling Stone, “Multiple people associated with the March for Trump and Stop the Steal events that took place during this period communicated with members of Congress throughout this process.”Walker’s sources, two unnamed organizers who say they helped plan the rallies, claim that Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, Lauren Boebert, Mo Brooks, Madison Cawthorn and Louie Gohmert or members of their staffs spoke to or collaborated with pro-Trump activists in the days, weeks and months before the attack on the Capitol. Gosar, a staunch defender of the former president, reportedly told potential rally goers that Trump would give them a “blanket pardon” for their activities.Greene, Gohmert, Boebert, Brooks, Cawthorn and Biggs have all pushed back strongly on the Rolling Stone report, which appeared over the weekend. Gosar called it “categorically false and defamatory.”“There was a meeting at the White House about voter fraud and election theft activity,” Brooks said. “But I have no recollection of any kind of organizational activity regarding the speeches on Jan. 6.”For his part, Gohmert released a statement Monday: “No one in my office, including me, participated in the planning of the rally or in any criminal activity on Jan. 6. We did not attend or participate at all.”Boebert also issued a statement on Monday: “Let me be clear. I had no role in the planning or execution of any event that took place at the Capitol or anywhere in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6th.”The organizers who spoke to Rolling Stone apparently plan to testify before the Jan. 6 select committee to provide more details about what they say was collaboration between Republican lawmakers and the pro-Trump activists who planned the events that ultimately led to the attack.In the meantime, some Democrats are already calling for their removal from office.“Any member of Congress who helped plot a terrorist attack on our nation’s Capitol must be expelled,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. “Those responsible remain a danger to our democracy, our country, and human life in the vicinity of our Capitol and beyond.”Likewise, Representative Cori Bush of Missouri said on Twitter that the House must “investigate and expel members of Congress who helped incite the deadly insurrection on our Capitol.”Bush had actually introduced a House resolution for this purpose just days after the attack. “There is no place in the people’s House for these heinous actions,” she said at the time, referring to “members who attempted to disenfranchise voters and incited this violence.”“I firmly believe,” she went on, “that these members are in breach of their sworn Oath of Office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They must be held accountable.”They weren’t. There was simply no appetite, among House leadership, for such drastic and decisive action. There still isn’t. But it was a serious demand, and we should take it seriously.Bush’s resolution rests on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which cleared Congress in 1866 and was ratified in 1868:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.In plain English, Congress has the power and authority to expel from office any constitutional officer who engages in sedition and takes up arms against the Constitution of the United States.The original context for this, obviously, was the Civil War and its immediate aftermath. By the summer of 1865, President Andrew Johnson, a conservative unionist from Tennessee, had taken charge of Reconstruction with a plan to restore the Southern states as equals, their political and constitutional status essentially unchanged from what it was before the war.Under Johnson’s arrangement, the former Confederate states could operate under their antebellum constitutions, the end of slavery notwithstanding. All-white electorates could elect all-white legislatures and send all-white delegations to Washington. Some of these men were, like Johnson, conservative unionists. Many more were former rebel leaders. Alexander Stephens — of the infamous Cornerstone Speech — was elected to represent Georgia in the Senate in 1866 after he was arrested and imprisoned as the former vice president of the Confederacy in 1865.Either way, neither group supported anything like fundamental change to the social and political fabric of the South. If seated, these delegations to Congress would stymie and block any Republican effort to reconstruct the South as an open society with free labor.Indeed, had every Southern representative been seated, Republicans would not have had the votes to get the 14th Amendment through Congress in the first place, on account of the two-thirds majority requirement for passage.Worse than potential obstruction was the real chance that the South would re-enter Congress with as much, or more, political power than it had before the war. The 13th Amendment had abolished chattel slavery, which effectively gutted the three-fifths compromise. And thanks to Johnson, recalcitrant Southern elites could form new governments without extending the vote to free and recently freed Blacks. When the 14th Amendment repealed the three-fifths compromise outright, the effect would be to give the South a considerable bonus in Congress.“Beginning with the reapportionment of 1870,” the legal scholar Garrett Epps writes in “The Antebellum Political Background of the Fourteenth Amendment,” “the Southern states would receive full representation for each freed slave rather than a mere sixty percent, a change that would give the region thirteen more House seats and electoral votes without the extension of minimal political rights, much less the franchise, to the freed slaves who formed the basis of the representation.”To head off this threat, Republicans took two steps. First, they refused to recognize, much less seat, members from the states readmitted under Johnson’s policies. And then, looking to the future, they wrote this prohibition on former Confederate leaders into the Constitution as Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Republicans would prevent the re-ascendence of this “slave power” with a blockade of federal office deployed against Southern elites.If the ultimate goal of Section 3, in other words, was to preserve the integrity of Congress against those who would capture its power and plot against the constitutional order itself, then Representative Bush is right to cite the clause against any members of Congress who turn out to have collaborated with the plotters to overturn the election and whose allies are still fighting to “stop the steal.”There is a movement afoot to undermine electoral democracy for the sake of a would-be strongman. We have the tools to stop it. Congress, and by this I mean the Democratic majority, should use them.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

  • in

    The First Step Toward Unity Is Honesty

    AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyThe First Step Toward Unity Is HonestyMore Republicans need to be honest that the election wasn’t stolen. Law enforcement needs to be transparent about the threats facing the nation.The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.Jan. 13, 2021Credit…Illustration by The New York Times; photograph via Getty ImagesIt has come to this: Lawmakers are telling journalists that they were casting their impeachment votes in a climate of threats where they feared for their own and their families’ safety.“After freshman G.O.P. Rep. Nancy Mace announced she would be opposing President Donald Trump’s bid to overturn the election, the single mother of two feared so much for her life that she applied for a concealed carry permit and sent her kids hundreds of miles from D.C.,” Politico reported this week.“There will be folks that try to kill us,” a Republican congressman, Peter Meijer, told CNBC.A representative democracy cannot function under the threat from violent extremists determined to overturn the results of a presidential election that they lost. Americans — whether elected officials or regular citizens — should not live in fear that they could be attacked or killed for doing their jobs or supporting a particular candidate. The peaceful transition of power is one of America’s proudest national traditions, but it is not a foregone conclusion. Transitions are the sum of many acts, the result of both parties putting aside their differences in service of national unity.To prevent more bloodshed in the days and months ahead and to ensure that those responsible for the attack on the Capitol are held to account, the nation needs to hear from two key groups of people: the people who encouraged the violence and those charged with preventing it.Republican lawmakers who objected to the electoral vote results on the grounds of mythical election fraud should immediately and publicly apologize, repudiate their lies and admit that Joe Biden won the election fairly.There is no honest factual dispute about the outcome of the election. Despite all the baseless, inflammatory allegations about shredded ballots and dead people voting, every state certified its vote tally without contest. State and federal courts threw out virtually every one of the dozens of cases President Trump and his allies brought alleging fraud or irregularities, because they never presented any credible evidence of it.Of course, the Republicans who’ve suggested otherwise knew this to be the case long before the Capitol was attacked on Jan. 6. Mr. Trump’s supporters in Congress knew it as they raged on television and Twitter about a rigged election — and raised money off the effort. They knew of the risks of violence from groups like the Proud Boys, who openly planned to attend the Jan. 6 rally.A handful of such Republicans seem dimly aware of the profound harm they’ve caused. “What we saw last week was not the American way,” Kevin McCarthy, the House Republican minority leader, said Wednesday. “Neither is the continued rhetoric that Joe Biden is not the legitimate president. Let’s be clear: Joe Biden will be sworn in as president of the United States in one week because he won the election.”At this point, political courage demands that leaders reject the dead-end ideology of “stop the steal,” which only encourages more violence from true believers and opportunistic extremists. Only by accepting responsibility and speaking the truth can Republicans begin to make amends.Then there is the more immediate concern: Law enforcement agencies owe the American people more regular updates on efforts to prevent further violence than they’ve received to date. Yes, these officials are busy tracking down the perpetrators of the Capitol attack and watching for any future eruption of organized chaos, but the nation has now gone a full week without an opportunity to question either Christopher Wray, the F.B.I. director, or Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general.When the Trump administration finally arranged a news conference on Tuesday, six days after the attack, it was left to the acting U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., Michael Sherwin, to explain that the investigation was “unmatched” in scope and that the department had “literally thousands of potential witnesses” around the country.For an administration that has failed time and again to perform the most simple tasks of governance, this halfhearted response is worrisome. So far we’ve had to rely on amateur Twitter detectives and local news reports to get even basic details about the attack: who organized it, why the Capitol was so easily breached, who committed which crimes, why attackers were allowed to walk away even after beating to death a Capitol Police officer and what is being done to prepare for the next wave of threatened attacks.Right now the priority must be reassurance, especially in light of last week’s systemic failure by multiple law enforcement agencies. During national emergencies, it’s critical that federal authorities be answerable to the public, so that they can be asked questions that demand answers.Questions like, why more heed was not taken of an internal warning issued by a Virginia field office of the F.B.I., on the day before the riot, that extremists were planning for “war.” The office had monitored online chatter that included specific calls for violence: “Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.”This contradicts the claim by one senior official that the F.B.I. had no information leading it to expect that violence would break out at the Capitol. Perhaps there was a good reason this particular evidence did not result in better preparedness, but it’s hard to know when the public is kept in the dark.Another question: How many members of law enforcement and the military participated in last week’s riot? In the wake of the rampage, several Capitol Police officers have been suspended and more than a dozen others are being investigated, either for their own involvement in the attack or for showing support for the rioters. One Secret Service officer is reportedly under investigation for posting comments on Facebook accusing lawmakers who confirmed Mr. Biden’s electoral victory of treason.All Americans are responsible for resolving political differences without violence. But those who have been elected to represent this nation, and who swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, bear the most responsibility of all.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More