H.R.es408 - Censuring Representative LaMonica McIver of New Jersey. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.Res.408 proposes censuring Representative LaMonica McIver of New Jersey for allegedly disrupting operations and endangering safety at a Federal immigration detention facility. The resolution cites unauthorized entry, assault, and intimidation of law enforcement officers. It calls for a formal censure, a pronouncement in the House, and further investigation by the Committee on Ethics.
The resolution highlights the responsibility of House members to uphold the law and maintain public confidence. The alleged actions are claimed to violate 18 U.S. Code § 111, which addresses assaulting or interfering with federal officers.
The resolution seeks to formally reprimand Representative McIver and initiate further inquiry into her conduct.
Expected Effects
If passed, Representative McIver would be formally censured by the House of Representatives. This would involve a public reading of the resolution and a requirement for her to appear in the well of the House.
The Committee on Ethics would then conduct an investigation, potentially leading to further disciplinary actions. The censure serves as a formal condemnation of her alleged actions.
Potential Benefits
- Upholds the integrity of the House of Representatives by addressing alleged misconduct.
- Reinforces the principle that elected officials are accountable for their actions.
- Sends a message that disruptive and potentially illegal behavior will not be tolerated.
- Could deter similar actions by other members in the future.
- Demonstrates commitment to the rule of law and public safety.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Could be perceived as politically motivated, depending on the context and evidence.
- May further polarize the political climate.
- Could set a precedent for censuring members based on allegations before full due process.
- Diverts time and resources from other legislative priorities.
- Could be seen as an overreaction if the alleged actions are not fully substantiated.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The resolution's alignment with the Constitution is complex. Congress has broad authority to discipline its members, as implied by Article I, Section 5, which allows each house to determine the rules of its proceedings and punish its members for disorderly behavior. However, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and assembly, which could be relevant if the Representative's actions were related to protected political expression.
Due process considerations under the Fifth Amendment could also be invoked if the censure is based on unsubstantiated allegations. The resolution itself doesn't violate any specific constitutional provision, but the process and evidence used to justify it must adhere to constitutional principles.
Ultimately, the constitutionality hinges on whether the censure is a legitimate exercise of Congress's disciplinary power or an infringement on protected rights.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).