Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(45,758 posts)
6. Absolutely not true.
Thu Oct 9, 2025, 05:57 PM
Oct 9

Per 2 USC 25, it is the Speaker of the House that is empowered to swear in members of Congress. That law was passed in 1789 and has over 230 years of precedent supporting it. The only way that someone other than the Speaker can swear in a member is if the House passes a resolution giving the Speaker authority to deputize someone else to administer the oath. And you can take it to the bank that this Republican majority Congress isn't going to adopt any such resolution.

It is all spelled out in specific detail in the official "Precedents of the US House of Representatives"

See https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20709495

And let me be clear: I am not in any way defending Johnson's failure to swear in Grijalva. His inaction is unjustified and inexcusable. But the often repeated claim that any old judge can step and administer a legally binding oath is simply false. Even a swearing in that is pre-authorized by a House Resolution has to be accepted after the fact by the adoption of a subsequent resolution by the House.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»'Let me do my job': Arizo...»Reply #6