to Overturn House Ethics Censure
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is suing Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and six other lawmakers, charging the ethics investigation that led to his public censure in late 2010 was mishandled.
In a complaint filed Monday in federal court in Washington DC, Rangel claims the Ethics Committee that investigated his alleged wrongdoing is guilty of "numerous flagrant, knowing and intentional violations" of his due process rights.
House members who approved his censure were "knowingly deceived" by the committee leaders -- including then-Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-AL) -- into thinking that the probe "had been conducted in accordance with procedural rules and the protection of [Rangel's] constitutional rights," the complaint adds.
The other lawmakers named in the suit are Reps. Michael McCaul (R-TX), Mike Conaway (R-TX), Charlie Dent (R-PA) and Gregg Harper (R-MS). Conaway and Dent were also members of the Ethics Committee behind the investigation. Conaway is the current chairman of the ethics committee.
Rangel was the chairman of the powerful Ways & Means Committee in March 2010 when a series of mounting ethics charges -- as well as pressure from fellow Democrats -- forced him to step down. He was replaced by Rep. Sandy Levin (D-MI), who remains the top Democrat on the panel.
A House GOP aide was quick to dismiss the suit on Monday.
"The House overwhelmingly voted to censure then-Chairman Rangel by a bipartisan vote of 333-79," the aide said. "It's sad that he has resorted to such tactics in the face of damning evidence."
Rangel's office declined to comment, deflecting questions to the lawyers handling the case.
Rangel's lawyer, New York attorney Jay Goldberg, argues that Rangel's reputation has been and will continue to be tarnished because of the House censure.
"[Rangel] has suffered and will continue to suffer injury in fact, which is fairly and directly traceable to the imposed action. The injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision of this court," according to the complaint.
In one of his toughest elections to date, the 22-term Rangel narrowly fended off State Sen. Adriano Espaillat in his primary race last year, winning the overwhelmingly Democrat district by less than 1,000 votes. The ethics charges and House censure were extensively used as attacks against Rangel during the bitter race.
Rangel's lawyer also states that the Harlem lawmaker's due process rights were violated under the Constitution and that the US District Court of DC has a responsibility to decide on the case.
"The court cannot, under the circumstances described above, leave undisturbed and without adequate remedy, a plaintiff who has been knowingly, intentionally and willfully denied his right to due process, the protection of his other fundamental rights and his protected liberty interest, where the House has been purposefully misled as described herein: he must have this court to repair to, in order to vindicate his constitutional rights," Rangel's complaint states.
READ FULL SOURCE ARTICLE: 04/17/2013
Editor's Note: This is how constitutionally illiterate the Progressive Movement is, and how unconstitutional our legal system has become. Article I, Sec. 5 of the US Constitution states plainly: "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member;..." That means, the rules of the House are the rules of the House. Mr. Rangel is trying to pursue this in civil court, which has no jurisdiction over the processes and procedures used in the operation of the House...An immediate vote to expel Mr. Rangel should be brought to the floor...
The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...
The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.