George Santos Expelled From Congress
On Friday, December 1st, Congress passed a bipartisan vote late afternoon expelling New York Representative George Santos. Congress passed 311-114, with 105 Republicans and 206 Democrats voting against the representation of the American people, (C-SPAN). George Santos faces 23 felony charges; including falsification of records and statements; identity theft, wire fraud, and credit card fraud, according to the Department of Justice.
The House of Representatives has implemented Congressional expulsion only five times before in American History; according to a November 2023 report by the Congressional Research Service “[t]o date, 20 Members of Congress have been expelled: 5 in the House and 15 in the Senate,” (CRS). Although 20 Members of Congress have faced explusion throughout the course of American history, no representatives have ever been removed from representation of Congress before being convicted of a crime.
Santos’ trial is set for September 9th, 2024, yet Congress took it upon themselves to forcibly remove an elected candidate from representation. Santos remaining in Congress does not advocate the alleged illegal wrongdoings; but advocates American justice, as all citizens have the right to a fair trial; this means we cannot be guilty of a crime until proven on the court.
The law does not make exceptions for personal bias. George Santos’ ex-campaign fundraiser has plead guilty to fraud, and will face the consequences; yet Santos himself has not yet faced a proper trial. Justice cannot occur without due process.
We the people cannot overlook the Amendments to the Constitution. The Congressional Research Services states that the Supreme Court decreed that “[i]n the performance of assigned constitutional duties each branch of the Government must initially interpret the Constitution, and the interpretation of its powers by any branch is due great respect from the others;” the CRS adds that “the Supreme Court has often treated historical practice as an “important interpretive factor” in construing constitutional provisions,” (CRS).
Congressional Basis for Expulsion
The Expulsion Clause, found in the U.S. Constitution’s Article I, § 5, Clause 2 declares that “[e]ach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member,” (Congress). George Santos has not yet displayed what can be defined as disorderly behavior, until he is convicted guilty of his alleged crimes. Even with a certainty of guilt, one cannot assume without conviction through a trial of one’s criminality; this may sound inhumane to the victims of horrific crimes, yet justice requires abiding by the legal system implemented in America, regardless of contrasting personal interests. That is the job of lawyers to prove the guilt of an alleged offender, and judges to execute the ruling; not that of Congress to assume liability for a crime.
The Constitution’s Article I, § 6, Clause 1.2 asserts that “[t]he Senators and Representatives …in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” The Framers derived this essential attribute from English Parliament, where it was applied to the Articles of Confederation, (Congress). The Constitution should not be interpreted with an abstract contemporary inference contingent on temporal culture.
What defines Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace?
Treason
Treason is clearly defined in Article III, § 3, Clause 1.2 as limited to “levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” (Congress). Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout, 8 U.S. 75 (1807) asserted that, “[t]his Court has power to issue the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum. To constitute a levying of war, there must be an assemblage of persons for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose. Enlistments of men to serve against government is not sufficient,” (Justia).
Felonies, Breach of Peace
Under the Supreme Court’s precedence, any Congressional privileges from arrest apply only to civil cases. Article I §6 Clause 1.2 immunizes Senators and Representatives from arrest when traveling to and from congress; enumerating that “[t]he words breach of the peace should not be narrowly construed, but should be held to embrace substantially all crimes, and therefore as in effect confining the parliamentary privilege exclusively to arrests in civil cases.” The Congressional priviledge of legal immunity is limited to civil matters only, defining criminal offenses as breaches of peace.
In 1798’s United States v. Cooper, the Court decreed the use of subpoenas to compel witness testimony from Congress. In United States v. Cooper, Newspaper editor Thomas Cooper was indicted under the Sedition Act of 1798 for the libel of President John Adams. Justice Samuel Chase, stated: I do not know of any privilege to exempt members of congress from the service, or the obligations of a subpoena,” (Congress). Over a century later, in Long v. Ansell, 293 U.S. 76, 80 (1934) Justice Brandeis reaffirmed that “[h]istory confirms the conclusion that the immunity is limited to arrest,” (LOC).
In the case of George Santos, he was not yet convicted of the crime he was accused of; this is standard practice in tyrannical dictatorships and oligarchic governments. America’s Constitutional Republic offers unmatched liberty, with the totality of its enumerated authority disclosed in a single document; yet this concept is contingent on due process and upholding the rule of law, without exception. The Constitution and the rule of law supersedes any person’s opinion of George Santos.
The Right to Trial
The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to a jury, and that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; while the Sixth Amendment declares that “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” We cannot forget these hallmarks of our great nation, as omitting policy to prevent criminality that may not have occurred is a slippery slope, alien to our legal system. Mao re-popularized the Chinese proverb, “kill the chicken to scare the monkey,” as a totalitarian tactic during his reign, using fear to maintain hegemony over the Chinese people, their resources, and their nation. The deposing of George Santos before a conviction can be held sets a formal precedent; should any member of Congress dissent against the uniparty, they are likely to find themselves in a similar position. Although Santos may be guilty of the crimes, assumed guilt is not enough precedent to remove a Congressional member from office. In this case, the uniparty was able to sway the majority of Congress by implementing groupthink.
The Fifth Amendment secures our right to liberty apart from government detainment, asserting that “[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.” George Santos’ alleged criminal behavior does not constitute public danger; should he be found to have committed these crimes he can be historically deposed for posterity. At the avoidance of disrespecting the American legal system, we must abide by the U.S. Constitution, for as it states in Article VI’s Supremacy Clause, it is the law of the land. This means that it holds legally binding authority over all federal laws, state laws, state constitutions, and state judges. Without the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause there would be no objective law, nor an American legal system requiring preservation. What is to stop the federal government from targeting other Representatives implementing the radical representation demanded from their constituents?
Impartial Judgment
Scripture supports holding a trial without personal bias in order to attain justice through impartial objective judgment. Jesus declared in the New Testament’s book of John; “[y]ou judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. In your Law it is written that the testimony of two people is true. I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me,” (John 8:15-18; ESV). Although the accused can deny their fraudulent behavior and committing of crimes, God surfaces truth, bringing all darkness into the light, (Ephesians 5:13).
The two most alarming factors with the Congressional expulsion of George Santos is; first, the uniparty formed mobocratic mentality striving to persecute an individual before they are convicted; conviction in the public court of opinion before trial makes an impartial jury nearly impossible. Second, it is extremely unlikely that just one Congressional politician committed felony crimes in our current administration. This is alarming because government is an authority ordained by God. Christians are to be subject to an honest government as it is written by the Apostle Paul in Romans, “[e]very person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God,” (Romans 13:1; NASB). In the contemporary age, the term honest government sounds like an oxymoron; yet it is declared to be an attainable achievement, therefore, an honest government should be pursued. Paul expounds, “For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.” (Romans 13:6; NASB). Matthew scribed a reminder to stay conscious of our fallen state, whereby Jesus decreed; “[t]he eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money,” (Matthew 6:22-24; ESV). Should George Santos be convicted guilty for conspiracy, wire fraud, false statements, falsification of records, aggravated identity theft, and credit card fraud; punishment will follow. In Acts, the Apostle Paul warns of imminent punishment to those who defraud the people, “Saul, also known as Paul, was filled with the Holy Spirit, and he looked the sorcerer in the eye. Then he said, ‘You son of the devil, full of every sort of deceit and fraud, and enemy of all that is good! Will you never stop perverting the true ways of the Lord? Watch now, for the Lord has laid his hand of punishment upon you, and you will be struck blind. You will not see the sunlight for some time,” (Acts 13:9-11; NLT). The Apostle John echoes a similar point that we should not judge hastily, and instead allocate enough time to give proper judgment to the convicted; "[d]o not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment...Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” (John 7:24, 7:51; NASB).
The physician Luke reminds us that we must self-regulate or capacity to avoid enacting untimely judgment without giving the accused the right to a fair trial before placing the judgment;“See to it, then, that the light within you is not darkness,” (Luke 11:35; NIV). The federal government omitted consideration of offering a referendum or some form of vote from Santos’ constituents whether or not to suspend his pay before the trial could occur. The dismissal may have been merited by Congress, but it was enacted against the representation of the people; and stands to facilitate correlative conduct, the persecution of our Constitutional Republic representative democracy without due process of the accused. This means the government has ordained their own access to manipulation the judicial process and override the representation of the people, as the contemporary normalization of Congressional expulsion continues to ensue.
Conclusion
The bottom line, this isn’t about George Santos; this is about limiting the authority of government, and preventing the federal infiltration to redefine the people’s U.S. Constitution. The very reason for its existence is to limit the encroachment of government power, yet contemporary ruling class is quick to dismiss its importance, uprooting the entire justice system along the way. The federal government cannot dismiss the importance of a trial. Should the government begin to remove Representation based on allegation, we should soon find ourselves living in an authoritarian dictatorship. Ex-Representative George Santos’ expulsion and exile from Congress have framed him in history, giving him far more coverage than his contributions to society have earned him. It is up to the American people to voice their representation on the matter. The federal government cannot remove representation based on allegation until convicted by trial; should Santos be convicted of these 23 felonies upon impartial trial, he should be mandated to give back every penny the taxpayers gave him since day one of his campaign; until that day comes, and enumerated felony convictions stand on Santos’ record, the people must exalt constituent representation over the collective decisions of the uniparty state. What begins as a justified exemption to Constitutional order and due process, continues as the perpetual downfall of liberty, democracy, and our exceptional Constitutional Republic.
Bibliography
Codes. (Accessed on December 2nd, 2023). 28 U.S.C. § 2072 - U.S. Code Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 2072 | FindLaw. https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/28-usc-sect-2072/
Congress. (Accessed on December 2nd, 2023). Levying War as Treason | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C1-2/ALDE_00013525/
Congress. (Accessed on December 2nd, 2023). Overview of Expulsion Clause. Constitution Annotated. Library of Congress. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S5-C2-2-1/ALDE_00013580/
Congress. (Accessed on December 2nd, 2023). Overview of Supremacy Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/.
CRS. Expulsion of Members of Congress: Legal Authority and Historical Practice. Congressional Research Service. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/R/R45078
C-SPAN. (Accessed on December 2nd, 2023). U.S. House of Representatives: House Session | December 1, 2023 | C-SPAN.org. https://www.c-span.org/video/?532154-1/house-session.
Justia. (Accessed on December 2nd, 2023). Ex Parte Bollman and Ex Parte Swartwout :: 8 U.S. 75 (1807) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/8/75/.
Justia. (Accessed on December 2nd, 2023). Williamson v. United States 512 U.S. 594 (1994). US Supreme Court Center. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/512/594/#tab-opinion-1959575
Justice. (Accessed on December 2, 2023). Eastern District of New York | Congressman George Santos Charged With Conspiracy, Wire Fraud, False Statements, Falsification of Records, Aggravated Identity Theft, and Credit Card Fraud | United States Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/congressman-george-santos-charged-conspiracy-wire-fraud-false-statements-0.
LOC. (Accessed on December 2, 2023). October Term, 1934. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep293/usrep293076/usrep293076.pdf