DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on November 17, 2010, 07:12:18 AM
-
(http://www.lucianne.com/images/lucianne/DailyPhoto/2010-11-17.jpg)
-
Naaaaa, he has a (D) afer his name. And anyone calling for his resignation, is obviously a racist
-
He does not have to resign. No one ever has to resign.
He can be thrown out. As a rule, if one resigns, they keep their perks, if not, they lose them.
This may or may not be true of Congress.
-
He does not have to resign.
So he could legally serve from prison?
-
He does not have to resign.
So he could legally serve from prison?
He was found guilty by the ethics committee. I don't know if criminal charges have or will be filed.
-
No, he could not serve from prison, but Congress cannot convict anyone to a prison term.
If there is a criminal trial, and he is found guilty, he will have to resign.
But Congress can only censure and expel him, they cannot try him for criminal acts.
-
Prison is not a bar to running for federal office, either. In 1798, Rep. Matthew Lyon ran for Congress from prison and won. He assumed his seat in Congress after serving four months in prison for "libeling" President John Adams. An effort was made to expel Lyon from the House, but it failed.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/can_a_convicted_felon_serve_in_elected.html (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/can_a_convicted_felon_serve_in_elected.html)
-
I have a feeling that if Rangel were convicted of a crime, Congress would give him the chance to resign, and expel him if he refused. This is what they did with Nixon. But I suppose that technically he could stay in office.
What happened in the 1700's is not necessarily relevant today.
We shall see what actually happens, eventually. I do not believe that Rangel will stay in office of convicted of a crime.