Is it really any different from requiring lawyers to go through a metal detector in a courthouse?
GDT: 11/3/20, Election Day, Donald J. Trump vs. Joseph R. Biden
- Thread starter The Tariff King
- Start date
- Status
Is it really any different from requiring lawyers to go through a metal detector in a courthouse?
striker42
Well-known member
Yes it is. I'm not sure you can place a requirement on admitting an elected congressman access to the chamber that isn't in the constitution.
You can bar their staff, you can bar them from their offices, but not from the chamber.
That said, they should just go through the metal detectors.
Runnin
Well-known member
Workers at the Hoover Bldg. and a lot of places have to go through metal detectors. Yes, people at the Capitol should too. Your nitpicking is taking a very unproductive turn, counselor.
striker42
Well-known member
People at the Capitol should be required to go through metal detectors. Congressmen should go through them voluntarily. I'm just not sure you can force congressmen to. At least not in order for them to get to the chamber.
My objection isn't to metal detectors. It's to the idea you can put impediments to a congressman entering the chamber. I think that's a precedent that could be played with a bit.
tululush
New member
Maybe if several of them didn’t lead people through the Capitol the day before the coup attempt as a way to prepare the domestic terrorists on a “reconnaissance” tour they wouldn’t have to worry about metal detectors.
Seriously **** these people. I hope they review the surveillance footage and figure out who each and every one of these un-American members of Congress are so they can be removed from their positions and placed under arrest. What an absolute disgrace if this is true.
[TW]1349217127622991873[/TW]
I can see your point, but I’m not sure how the Constitution would prevent this from happening. They’re not technically preventing members of Congress from entering the chamber, but rather dictating how it is that a member enters and implicitly what a member can bring into the chamber with them. I don’t love comparing something realistic with something ridiculous, but how would this differ in constitutionality from telling a member of Congress they cannot drive their vehicle into the chamber? I’m honestly very open to learning on this topic, as I can see some ways in which it could get into a grey area rather quickly.
Last edited:
striker42
Well-known member
Telling someone they can't bring something with them into the chamber wouldn't be putting up an obstacle to entry. It doesn't require any action to not bring something.
This might be a better example. The House could likely forbid members from bringing guns into the chamber. However, could they require members to be armed? If you require members to carry firearms, you are requiring them to take an action and so are putting up a hurdle they must jump to gain entry. The Constitution doesn't grant Congressional leadership the power to impose additional requirements on elected Congressmen.
Ultimately, there's probably a line that would be drawn by the courts. I suspect that metal detectors would be allowed as the burden is so minimal that it's not much of an obstacle. The Courts are also reluctant to interfere with the inner workings of Congress. There would, however, be a limit (and a low limit at that) as to what could be required of a Congressman to gain entrance to the chamber.
This is why I never said the argument against metal detectors is the best argument or a winning argument. There is, however, a legitimate argument against requiring Congressmen to go through them.
striker42
Well-known member
Mitch is apparently furious and reports are that while he agrees Trump committed impeachable acts, he's waiting to see the articles that get transmitted to the Senate before taking a side on conviction. However, if he goes against Trump, it will provide cover for other GOP Senators. Apparently there are a lot who are taking their lead from Mitch.
Trump is in real danger of becoming the first President ever convicted in an impeachment trial. I still think the odds favor acquittal but the odds of conviction are much, much higher than last time.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Gonna be a close vote on the two-thirds needed to convict in the Senate. The octogenarian institutionalists are the group to watch. People like Grassley and Shelby.
Also the group that just got elected (Ernst, Graham, Tillis, Cornyn). They don't have to worry about an election for six years.
Also the group that just got elected (Ernst, Graham, Tillis, Cornyn). They don't have to worry about an election for six years.
Last edited:
That makes sense. Your point about the burden being low is where I’m stuck on. If it’s agreed upon that Congress can set a rule to not bring a firearm into the chamber, I guess I just don’t see why they wouldn’t be able to take minor steps to enforce it. I can see though how there would be an argument against it.
This really is interesting now. I’ve been fairly vocal that I don’t think there’s a compelling enough case yet for impeachment this time (as opposed to last time, where I think conviction would have been justified) but it’ll be interesting to see what could come out in a trial if they consider it.
striker42
Well-known member
You can 3D print a gun now that will fire one shot. You still would need to smuggle in metal bullets but that's easier than smuggling in a gun.
I think you'll see more of those full body scanners in use in the future. If you have a receipt in your pocket, those will detect it.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I object to your use of the word riot. This was a mostly peaceful protest. Precedent was set for this terminology repeatedly over the past few months.
- Status